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

With annotations only conveying readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, the description carries the behavior burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the POST side effect, success response fields, fuse expiry semantics, the sealed-bounty access.pending flow, common blockers, and identity/eligibility preconditions—none of which are visible in the 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 dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries necessary operational detail. It front-loads the endpoint and parameters, then layers response behavior, error cases, and prerequisites. Slight formatting structure could improve scannability, but the length is justified by 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes responsibility for explaining return values and failure modes. It covers success payload fields, the fuse/access timing nuance, sealed-bounty behavior, common error blockers, and payout-tier requirements. Nothing essential for invoking the tool is left out.

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%, so the baseline applies: the schema already documents bounty, contact, agent_kid, and agent_token. The description restates only the three required parameters and does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, such as how to format the bounty field or how contact affects payout.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Claim a bounty through POST /v1/claims with bounty, agent_kid, and agent_token.' It clearly communicates that this tool creates a claim on a bounty, and the surrounding detail about sealed bounties and claim clocks distinguishes it from related operations like submit_delivery or get_claim.

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 gives actionable guidance: call frantic.get_agent_status first when blocked, and use frantic.get_claim to see the restarted clock after access is granted. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list preferred alternatives for other claim scenarios, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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