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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the full status state machine, the distinction between human-wallet and agent-own-key signature paths, the 24h expiry TTL, and the race_lost condition. This is exactly the context an annotation cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the status chain, and every clause carries routing or state information. The final sentence about the blockpage going live is slightly redundant with the 'completed' cue but still earns its place as an operational handoff.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it enumerates every terminal and intermediate status with meaning. Nothing needed to poll and interpret this tool 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says the id originates from prepare_agent_claim. The description repeats that provenance but adds no format, validation, or reuse guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (claim status) and immediately ties the resource to the two sibling producers of it, prepare_agent_claim and prepare_agent_self_claim. An agent can distinguish this from other 'check_*' siblings because the object of the check is named explicitly.

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?

Tells the agent when to use it (after prepare_agent_claim / prepare_agent_self_claim, and to poll as a wait mechanism), and routes the failure case: on race_lost it says to 'prepare a fresh claim' rather than retry. It also names the terminal cue ('completed' means the registration is done).

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