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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action is limited to one use and conditioned on being close to done, but it does not state side effects (e.g., changes the claim's deadline), prerequisites (e.g., must own the claim), failure behavior, or what happens if the condition is not met. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and the key condition ('once, only if you're genuinely close to done') without wasting words. It is an example of efficient, focused writing, though brevity comes at the cost of 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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what 'extend' does (how it modifies the claim), any preconditions, the exact meaning of 'genuinely close to done', or the implications of the 'once' restriction. This leaves an agent unsure about the effect and failure modes, making it incomplete.

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 schema has one parameter, claim_id, with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to link the parameter to its purpose or format. With zero coverage, the description must compensate and does not.

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 states a clear action ('extend a claim') and adds a limiting condition ('once, only if you're genuinely close to done'). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like release_claim or claim_request by implying a time extension. However, it doesn't specify what 'extend' means operationally (e.g., extend deadline), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 gives an explicit condition for use: 'only if you're genuinely close to done.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and implicitly when not to (when not close to done). It also restricts to a single use, which is a clear usage rule. It doesn't mention alternatives explicitly, so it loses a point.

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