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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent and destructive, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the possession-proof requirement and the re-claim rule (original claim date preserved, org/billing ownership can shift). It does not spell out what is actually destroyed or taken from a previous owner, which is the one behavioral gap left to the 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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler or restatement of the title. The denser final sentence is justified because every clause (claim-date preservation, org default, billing impact) is decision-relevant.

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 an output schema exists, return values needn't be described; the description covers prerequisites, the org default, and the re-claim edge case. It omits the role floor for the target org (only in the schema) and the concrete destructive consequence implied by destructiveHint=true.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: re-claiming files the agent under the passed `org_id` and can change which organization owns and bills it, which is not stated in the `org_id` schema text. That consequence-level detail elevates it above the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Claim a verifiable identity — bind an agent to your organization') and states the outcome (trust/accountability record becomes provably yours). This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_agent, list_agents, and verify_reputation.

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?

States the precondition for use (the agent's possession proof, `hash_proof`, is required) and explains the default routing when `org_id` is omitted. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but the surrounding siblings are mostly read tools, so the context is adequate.

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