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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value ('disposition + versioned proof_shape') but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, mutates state, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The verb 'Package' is ambiguous as to whether it modifies the claim.

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 extremely concise, containing just two sentences. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the return. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable level of context by stating the purpose and return format. However, it lacks explanation of what 'disposition' values are allowed (e.g., 'admit' vs 'refuse'), what 'proof_shape' contains, and any behavioral or prerequisite information. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps, though the simple parameter count mitigates incompleteness.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'claim' with the description 'Published claim from dossier claims[].' The tool description adds minimal semantic value by referring to 'published claim object,' but does not elaborate on required fields, constraints, or the structure of the claim beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific action 'Package' with a resource 'published claim object' and clarifies the intent with 'disposition admit/refuse.' It also mentions the return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gf_verify or gf_cite. However, 'Package' is somewhat uncommon as a verb, making it slightly less explicit than a tool like 'create' or 'update.'

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 phrase 'over a published claim object' implies the intended use case (operating on published claims from a dossier), providing implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gf_status or gf_verify, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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