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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds important context beyond them: it verifies issuer authorization against active reservation state, returns an unsigned claim, and never signs or broadcasts. This meaningfully helps the agent avoid expecting a signed or submitted transaction.

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?

Two sentences carry the essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and what it explicitly does not do. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete for safe invocation. It could still be slightly stronger by noting the expected state prerequisite for the 'active reservation' and explicitly routing the agent to a signing/broadcasting sibling when actual submission is intended.

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 already fully describes both required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that authorization is checked against the active reservation and activity hash, but it does not elaborate much on the exact structure of authorization or the role of issuerSignature beyond what the schema provides.

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: verify issuer authorization, then return an unsigned claim call. It also distinguishes the tool from signing/submitting siblings by explicitly saying 'Never signs or broadcasts,' making the tool's role 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 gives clear usage context: use this when verification against an active reservation and activity hash is needed and an unsigned claim is acceptable. It implicitly warns against using it when signing or broadcasting is needed, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling such as claim_as_agent.

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