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

Annotations declare a safe read (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world), and the description layers on behavior those annotations cannot express: the transient {status: 'pending'} response, retry-after-a-few-seconds semantics, the 7-day link validity window, and the real payload (app id, install snippet, privacy-policy URL) returned on success. No contradiction with the read-only, closed-world hints.

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 core check, then adds the pending/retry behavior and success payload in a compact sequence. The final sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct operational value; nothing is redundant filler.

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 usefully describes both the pending and confirmed return shapes, plus the 7-day validity and placeholder-replacement step. It omits failure modes such as invalid or expired codes, which matters for a polling tool, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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% and the single `code` parameter is fully documented with a pattern in the schema. The description only implies the code indirectly ('claim created with claim_app'), adding no format or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: checks whether a user has confirmed a claim created by claim_app, and explicitly ties itself to that sibling tool. An agent can distinguish it from claim_app, get_install_snippet, or check_* tools without reading any schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call this after claim_app while the user hasn't confirmed, and re-call after waiting a few seconds. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state what to do on the terminal-success path beyond replacing placeholders, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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