Accept a claim

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, but the description adds crucial context: the side effect of ordering the delivery, the offer expiration window, and a detailed breakdown of 409 errors (inappropriate_status, old_version, offer_expired, state_mismatch) with corrective actions. This far exceeds the annotation 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?

The description is exactly three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: describing the action and consequence, warning about expiration, and detailing error handling and version source. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is remarkably complete for a mutation tool. It covers the prerequisite status, the side effect of ordering, the time constraint, the source of the version parameter, and all relevant error scenarios with recommended recovery actions. This is more than sufficient for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both claim_id and version. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema by stating that version comes from get_claim, and the 409 error explanation for old_version clarifies the parameter's significance. This supplements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 the tool confirms a claim after successful estimation and starts the courier search, with the consequence that the delivery is actually ordered. This uses specific verbs and resources, and the status precondition (ready_for_approval) distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_claim or cancel_claim.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (after successful estimation, when status is ready_for_approval) and warns about the 10-minute offer expiration, implying prompt action. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the precondition is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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