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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is disclosed. The description goes beyond by specifying authentication requirements, role-based visibility (requester sees all, others only their own), and the full list of statuses. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds necessary detail in an organized way. It includes statuses, visibility rules, and related tools without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a read-only list operation with a single parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers authentication, visibility scope, statuses, and guides to related tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter post_id, with a clear description already in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter; it only implies its use. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the documentation.

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 clearly states the tool lists claims on a human_request with statuses and the submitted answer. This is a specific verb (list) and resource (claims on human_request), and it differentiates itself from related tools like colony_accept_request_answer and colony_request_answer_revision by mentioning them as separate review actions.

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?

The description provides context on when to use this tool: to list claims and see statuses, and explicitly points to alternatives for reviewing a submitted answer. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when not to use), but the scope is clear from the text, and sibling differentiation is present.

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