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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it explicitly states it does not contact the operator or airline and requires Untap sign-in. It stops short of covering error/failure behavior or partial-update semantics.

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 with the core action and status list front-loaded, then the identity of claim_id, then the scope and auth caveat. No redundant or filler content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential: what changes, which statuses exist, auth requirement, and the crucial limit that no external party is contacted. It does not describe the response or what happens to note/amount when status changes, a minor gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings and the pence conversion example. The description restates the status set and mentions 'paid with the amount received', adding little beyond the schema; the 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?

States a specific verb (records/updates) and resource (claim status in the person's Untap account) and enumerates the four possible statuses. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like save_claim and list_my_claims, which create or read claims rather than mutate status.

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?

Explains when this applies (recording progress on an existing claim) and where the claim_id comes from (saved or listed), and scopes the effect to Untap's record only. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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