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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates the tool returns instructions and does not perform the claim (non-destructive). It does not explicitly state read-only, but the behavior is unambiguous. Providing a readOnlyHint annotation would be ideal, but the description is sufficient.

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?

Description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence immediately states the primary function, and the second adds crucial context about actual claim and usage. Well-structured and efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should elaborate on the return format of the instructions (e.g., text, steps, structured data). It only says 'step-by-step instructions' and implies it's human-readable, but an agent might need to know if it's plain text or JSON. Lacks detail on the exact output structure.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear param descriptions (e.g., 'Top-left tile x'). The tool description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 returns step-by-step instructions for claiming a block, not performing the claim itself. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'claim_quote_x402' which likely performs the actual claim. However, the tool name 'claim_block' might misleadingly suggest it performs the claim, slightly reducing clarity.

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 instructs MCP clients to display the instructions to the human/agent operator, implying this tool is for obtaining guidance rather than executing the claim. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, but the context around out-of-band completion provides clear usage cues.

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