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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies that only visibility='public' claims are surfaced, private state never leaks, explains how accuracy is calculated (confirmed/(confirmed+refuted) over resolved claims), and notes that null is returned when n < 5. It also mentions the sample tier restriction (sp500+ only). 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 four sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, privacy guarantee, accuracy formula, and tier restriction. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 tool complexity (returns claims with computed reputation), annotations, and likely output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers purpose, filtering logic, privacy, accuracy formula, null condition, tier restriction, and usage context. It addresses potential concerns about data leakage and calculation edge cases. No obvious gaps.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that customer_id is a Stripe ID resolved from the handle, but this is already in the schema description. For 'limit', the description doesn't add anything beyond schema defaults/max/min. Credit is baseline 3 due to high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it returns public claims and claim-accuracy reputation for a user by Stripe customer_id, used on the /[handle] profile. It specifies the resource (public claims + reputation) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_claims (which likely lists all claims) and list_claims_for_thesis (which lists claims for a specific thesis).

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 context for when to use this tool: 'Used by the /[handle] profile to render an analyst's claim-level track record.' It also differentiates this signal from thesis-outcome accuracy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other use cases.

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