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

Annotations already state that this is not read-only, is not idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the token is the sole authorization, no seat is required, browser link opening does not confirm, and claim vs recover tokens have different effects. It does not describe failure behavior for invalid or expired tokens, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with the tool's role in the flow, then adds the critical token distinction and authorization behavior. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no padding.

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?

This is a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations that cover safety and idempotency. The description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: where the token comes from, which sibling to use for recover tokens, that the browser link does not count, and that no seat is required.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that `token` is the raw token or full link from the claim or recover email. The description reinforces that the token comes from the email and is the only authorization, but it does not add new parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: it finishes the email flow started by `claim` by passing the emailed token, which records the address as the org's claimed email. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from `claim` and `recover_seat`, so an agent can identify when this is the right call.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use this to finish the flow started by `claim`, and use `recover_seat` instead when the token is a recover token and the goal is to get a seat back. It also clarifies that opening the email link in a browser does not confirm the claim, so the agent should call this tool.

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