Create a delivery claim

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits: non-immediate dispatch, status transitions, potential error_messages in a 200 response, and request_id-based idempotency. These go well beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), giving the agent critical expectations about side effects and error handling.

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 dense and front-loaded, but at ~4 sentences, it is longer than the 'two sentences' ideal. Every sentence conveys necessary information—workflow, return values, verification, idempotency—so it is not verbose, but it could be tightened.

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 the tool has 16 params, nested objects, no output schema, and complex state transitions, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what it creates, the estimation flow, required confirmation, return payload fields, verification method, error behavior, and idempotency. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 16 parameters, including nested objects. The description adds context for request_id (idempotency guarantee) and auto_accept (skips accept_claim), but these are already partially covered in the schema. Overall, the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score 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?

The description opens with 'Creates a delivery claim', a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_claim, accept_claim, cancel_claim) by indicating it is the creation step. The additional detail about estimation workflow reinforces its unique role.

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 workflow context: claims go through estimation and need accept_claim or auto_accept, and verification via get_claim. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like check_price for pricing-only queries, so it falls short of full guideline coverage.

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