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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the untrusted-content warning about titles, descriptions and host/collection names, which is real behavioral guidance an agent cannot get from schema or annotations. It also discloses the response fields, compensating for the absent output schema. It does not cover error behavior for an invalid or expired code.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then the claim boundary, then the untrusted-data caveat. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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 enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows what a successful call yields, and it flags the human-only claim path plus the prompt-injection risk. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents the floorfeed.io/m/<code> format, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only reframes it as a "claim code"; it adds no format or validation detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"A FloorFeed Moment (an event badge) by its claim code" states the resource and the lookup key, and the colon-list enumerates exactly what comes back (title, day, art, claim window, claimed count, open state). It implicitly separates itself from my_moment by being keyed on a public claim code rather than an owned moment, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

"To claim, the person opens the url and taps Claim free themselves" is an explicit when-not-to-use-this-tool boundary: the agent should not attempt claiming through this endpoint. There is no direct routing to badge_page, my_moment, or collection, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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