Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond this by explaining that 'verified' means the brand pays for auditing, that info_quality never influences ranking, that Graviti does not assess efficacy, and that awaiting_brand_confirmation claims should be treated as unconfirmed rather than violations. These are non-obvious behavioral details an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

All four sentences add substantive context and the main purpose is front-loaded. The description is dense but not padded; minor tightening of the nested parentheticals could improve readability, but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it covers the main fields, block semantics, and status caveats. It stops short of specifying the exact container structure or behavior for unknown brands, but for a single-parameter read tool this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, brand, is already fully documented in the schema with a type, description, and example. The description refers to 'one brand' and claims for a brand but does not add new syntax or constraints, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Structured claims for one brand' and enumerates the distinctive content: provenance URLs, freshness timestamps, corroboration counts, and verification status. This clearly identifies a read-only retrieval tool for per-brand claims and differentiates it from siblings such as get_gap_report or get_ledger by scope and content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It specifies that the tool operates on a single brand and gives important interpretive context about verification status and the info_quality score. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough to select this tool appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.