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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing accepted token type (a2l_reg_*) and a wire-field gotcha ('the wire field is status, NOT claim_status') plus conditional extra fields (balance, hire.authority). It lacks any note on error or rate-limit behavior, but the additions are meaningful.

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-loads the when-to-use clause and stays dense with no filler sentences. It runs a bit long by bundling in tangential routing hints (balance, home, hire.authority), which slightly dilutes focus but each sentence still carries information.

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 return-value burden and does so by naming the primary status field, auto_claim_status, owner/claim-chain detail, and conditional balance/home fields. It's near-complete for a simple read tool, missing only error or empty-state behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add on parameter semantics and it correctly avoids pretending otherwise.

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+resource ('Check claim chain state') and enumerates the state progression (pending_identity → identity_verified → payouts_enabled), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_trial_status or wallet_balance. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the described return fields are distinctive enough to route correctly.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'When to use' framing and gives a concrete context ('Useful while polling onboarding'), plus token eligibility ('Both reg tokens and live tokens may call'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it's strong but not fully disambiguating.

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