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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the generic annotations: it discloses the required permission ('release:claim') and the billing implication ('replay is never billable'). It also implies one-time claim semantics. It does not state what happens on a repeated claim (e.g., error vs. idempotent no-op), but the disclosed information is useful and non-contradictory.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences deliver the core action ('Claim a completed Release Gate result once') and immediately add the two key constraints (permission and billing). No filler 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?

Given a single parameter, an existing output schema, and modest annotation coverage, the description provides enough context: what to claim, when it applies, required permission, and billing behavior. It does not explain what happens if the same run_id is claimed twice, but the 'once' wording partially covers that.

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 run_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its source, ownership constraint, and what values must NOT be passed. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add much; it remains at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Claim') with a clear object ('a completed Release Gate result') and a key qualifier ('once'). This distinguishes it semantically from sibling tools like get_woo_release_verification and start_woo_release_verification, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'completed Release Gate result' implies the tool is used after verification finishes, and 'Requires release:claim' gives an authorization condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_woo_release_verification, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the permission.

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