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

Annotations already declare the mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: setting state to 'credited' with credited_usd causes that amount to count in provider credits and the close, a non-obvious side effect.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and state meanings. No fluff, though the dense phrasing could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Given a mutation tool with four parameters, an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves gaps for claim_id and note, and does not mention permissions or idempotency beyond annotations.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the state values and the conditional use of credited_usd, but completely omits claim_id and note. Half the parameters remain unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (marks) and resource (claim), and enumerates the three target states (submitted, credited, denied). Clear enough to distinguish from list_claims, though it does not explicitly name the sibling for finding a claim_id.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it—when changing a claim's state—but there are no explicit conditions for when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., list_claims to retrieve claim_id). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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