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

Annotations already say this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the claim workflow, proof requirement, required follow-up, and what account access a claimed site unlocks. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite and next step, then the resulting account effects. Each sentence contributes useful decision or workflow context.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the initiation flow, the proof step, the required follow-up call, and the account consequences. Annotations cover safety, and the remaining call-relevant context is present.

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%, and the single site parameter is already documented in the schema as a domain like example.com. The description mentions the site and ownership proof but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Starts claiming a site") and distinguishes the step from the sibling check tool by naming "mttr_claim_check" as the follow-up. The agent can tell this starts a claim rather than checking one.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: put up the TXT record or file, then call mttr_claim_check. It also clarifies that a public report can be read without a claim, which helps the agent decide when this tool is not needed.

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