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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals key behaviors: pending status shape, the 30-minute link expiry, and the fact that on success it returns the real app ID, install snippet, and privacy-policy URL. It also instructs to replace the placeholder, which is non-obvious and valuable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every detail earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified, and the structure flows logically from purpose to behavior to usage note.

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?

Given the simple 1-parameter schema and no output schema, the description fully explains both the input (claim code) and the output shape (pending vs. successful response with real ID and snippet). It even covers the expiry behavior and post-processing instruction. Nothing is missing.

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 fully describes the only parameter (code) with a description matching the tool's mention. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the user has confirmed a claim created with claim_app.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like claim_app (which creates the claim) and get_install_snippet (which retrieves a snippet but not for pending claims). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: it is the polling tool for claim confirmation. It also tells the user to wait and call again if status is pending. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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