Record a firm's intent to claim its directory listing.
Pre-OAuth, TESSA logs the claim and a representative reaches out via email within one business day to verify the claimant and switch the listing's verification status to 'claimed'. Full self-service OAuth-2.1 claim flow lands in a follow-up plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firm_slug | Yes | ||
| claim_email | Yes | ||
| claimant_name | No | ||
| claimant_role | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden and discloses the tool logs an intent, triggers a manual verification process, and does not immediately change verification status. This provides clear behavioral expectations.
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 relatively concise with three sentences, front-loading the primary action. The extra detail about the OAuth plan is slightly tangential but does not significantly detract from clarity.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and behavioral flow, but lacks parameter details and does not mention error scenarios or expected output. Given no output schema and 4 parameters, it is minimally adequate.
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 0%, yet the description adds no information about the four parameters (firm_slug, claim_email, claimant_name, claimant_role). The schema titles provide minimal meaning, but the description fails to explain their purpose or usage.
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 clearly states 'Record a firm's intent to claim its directory listing', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like find_compliance_firm or get_firm_profile by focusing on the claiming action.
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 explains the current manual workflow and mentions a future OAuth flow, giving context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.