Get claim info

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that estimation errors can appear as an error_messages array inside a successful 200 response, and enumerates known statuses for interpreting results. This is valuable, non-obvious information that goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent 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 long but information-dense; every section (field list, status list, caution) serves a purpose. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the purpose, though the status enumeration could be trimmed if considered overlong.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing all returned fields, known statuses, and the error_messages edge case. It provides a comprehensive picture of what the tool returns and how to interpret it, making it complete for a read-only info retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (claim_id), which already explains its origin and format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it returns 'Full claim information' and lists the specific fields (status, version, items, route_points, etc.), establishing a clear purpose of retrieving comprehensive details for a single claim. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when full claim information is needed and notes that version is needed for accept/cancel, giving a weak contextual hint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of clear usage guidelines.

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