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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it verifies the transfer to the treasury itself, opens the plan for 'this principal', restricts claiming to the paying wallet, and requires a Cubicle key. Idempotency and open-world nature are already covered by annotations, so this is additive rather than redundant.

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?

It front-loads the action and follows with the required inputs and constraints in densely packed but purposeful sentences. Slightly long and parenthetical-heavy, but every clause carries operational value.

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 mutating claim operation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisites (payment, signature, key), the validation model, and the resulting state change ('opens the plan for this principal'). What the call returns is not described, but that is a minor gap for a claim action.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by specifying the exact signed message format ('Cubicle plan claim\nagent: <id>\ntx: <tx hash>'), which is essential for producing a valid payer_signature_hex and is not in the schema. The chain constraint is already in the enum, so no extra credit there.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Claim a plan you paid for on chain') and describes the exact mechanism (tx hash + payer signature). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'plans' tool by referencing the message that tool returns, so an agent can tell claim apart from listing plans.

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 makes clear this is the post-payment claim step and points to the 'plans' tool as the source of the exact message to sign. It also gives a hard precondition ('only the wallet that paid can claim it') and an auth requirement ('Needs your Cubicle key'), though it never states an explicit when-not-to-use case.

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