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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the economic consequence: on predicate verify-pass, 90% goes to the seller and 10% is a platform fee, released atomically from escrow. It omits what happens when the predicate fails (revert vs. partial state) and whether a witness can be replayed, which matters for a one-shot 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?

Three tight sentences: action first, consequence second, scope constraint last. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 usefully covers the success outcome (atomic 90/10 escrow split). It leaves the failure path and the return payload (e.g., whether a fulfillment or receipt object comes back) unstated, which is the main remaining gap for a state-changing claim operation.

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%, so baseline 3 applies: the schema already documents agentId, intentId, witness, and ciphertext in detail. The description's phrase 'ciphertext + witness' actually reads as though both are required, while the schema marks ciphertext optional — a slight semantic skew rather than added clarity.

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 (claims) and resource (Class A intent), plus the mechanism used (ciphertext + witness) and the scope restriction 'Class A only'. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like claim_unit, accept_intent_b, or submit_reveal_preimage, which an agent must reason about on its own.

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 seller role and the 'Class A only' exclusion are implied context, which narrows usage meaningfully. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the other claim/accept/reveal siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g., intent must exist and be in a claimable state).

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