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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, so the bar for additional transparency is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that live trials never deliver a credential in chat and that this is a legacy claim path for historical intents, which helps prevent misuse.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the critical exclusion and alternative route. It is appropriately compact for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the core use case, the exclusion of live trials, and the alternative path, while an output schema presumably covers return values. However, it does not explain how to obtain valid intentId and claimSecret values, which are both required and undocumented, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not define intentId or claimSecret in terms of what they are, where they come from, or how they relate. The names hint at their roles, and the phrase 'checkout intents' gives some context, but the description does not compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter 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 states a specific verb ('claim'), a clear resource ('credentials'), and a precise scope ('still-valid historical Sandbox or paid checkout intents'). It also distinguishes itself from live trials, making it easy for an agent to tell this tool apart from related siblings like dp_commercial_start_sandbox or dp_commercial_start_live_trial.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: for still-valid historical Sandbox or paid checkout intents. It also gives an explicit when-not and alternative: live trials never deliver an operational credential in chat, so the agent should 'install DigitalPublic and use project OAuth instead.'

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