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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Returns instructions, never performs the claim' and explains why (wallet signature required), plus the cost note 'Claiming is free.' This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the exact behavior and rationale, though it doesn't detail the output structure or any edge cases.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Explains exactly how to claim work and what happens after') and then add essential context (free, no action, reason). Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless, read-only informational tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it does not do, and why. Combined with the rich annotations and presence of an output schema, an agent has everything needed to correctly invoke this tool without further investigation.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter information because none is needed. This meets the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Explains exactly how to claim work and what happens after.' It uses a specific verb (explains) and resource (claim work), and explicitly distinguishes itself from action tools like 'prepare_claim' and 'submit_claim' by noting it 'never performs the claim.' This makes it easy for an agent to know this is an informational tool, not an action.

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 description implies when to use it: when you need instructions on claiming. It clarifies it does not perform the claim, which directs agents toward other tools for actual claiming, but it does not name those alternatives explicitly. The context 'claims requires the worker's own wallet signature' provides rationale, but a direct reference to sibling tools would make it a 5.

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