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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses that the record is marked as owned, that an API key is returned only the first time and shown once, and that contradicting an existing verified owner routes the proof to review instead of transferring ownership. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs to anticipate.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what to do, the success outcome and API key caveat, and the conflict edge case.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary flow, side effects, the one-time key behavior, and the conflict path. The main gap is the lack of explicit failure semantics or return format, which matters more because no output schema or annotations exist.

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 documents verifySecret as 'returned by claim_agent', and the description only indirectly clarifies claimId via the title's 'claim you started'. With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds some context but does not fully compensate for claimId having no explicit explanation.

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 concrete action—'Check the published proof'—and the meaningful result: ownership is marked and an owner-scoped API key is returned. It is clearly distinct from siblings like claim_agent and submit_agent because it is about verifying an already-claimed proof and claiming ownership.

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 context for when to call this tool: after starting a claim and after the proof has been published ('Check the published proof now', 'a claim you started'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using check_status instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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