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

The description explicitly discloses that the tool does NOT automatically grant control, logs the claim, triggers a manual email verification, and switches the verification status to 'claimed'. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so thoroughly.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adding necessary behavioral details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 explains the async process well but omits what the immediate return value or response looks like. Given there is no output schema, the agent is left without knowing whether the call returns a claim ID, status, or error. This is a clear gap for effective invocation.

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 has 0% coverage and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (firm_slug, claim_email, claimant_name, claimant_role). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of the inputs.

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 'Record a firm's intent to claim its directory listing,' which uses a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_firm_profile or request_quote, which are read or quote-request operations.

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 clear context on when this tool is applicable (pre-OAuth flow) and what to expect. It notes that a representative will follow up and that a full self-service flow is planned, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for immediate OAuth claims.

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