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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the possible statuses, the response contents (submission timestamp, reviewer notes), and the renaming behavior, adding meaningful context beyond a simple read operation. However, it does not mention error handling or no-match scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight paragraph of four sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the core function, explaining the rename, providing usage context with statuses, and describing response contents. There is no filler, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, possible results, and key response fields. It does not mention behavior when no claim matches, but with an output schema available, that omission is not critical. The description feels complete for its purpose.

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%, so the input schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides; it only reinforces that the path comes from upsert_note, which is already stated in the schema's path description. Therefore, baseline 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 opens with 'Return the current contribution state for kind='claim' notes,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It enumerates the possible states (requested, guardrail_passed, guardrail_rejected, published), making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinguishing it from sibling note-management tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this after submitting a claim with upsert_note(kind='claim') to check...' This provides clear contextual guidance. It also includes a note about the former name to avoid tool-not-found errors, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, preventing a 5.

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