Search claims

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, so the description adds value by disclosing the return shape (claims like get_claim, plus a cursor), the sort order (creation date), and the pagination semantics (either offset/limit or cursor from previous response). This is beyond annotation data.

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?

Three concise, information-dense sentences. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then return shape, then pagination alternatives. No redundant words.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior: searching with filters, sorted results, return shape (same as get_claim), and cursor pagination. The schema handles parameter details, so no need to list every filter.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The main description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating the cursor-based pagination mode already covered in the cursor parameter description. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 'Search' and resource 'claims', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_claim (singular retrieval). It also specifies 'by filters with pagination' and 'sorted by creation date', which defines the tool's scope.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool: to search claims with filters. It also explains two pagination modes (offset/limit or cursor-based) and notes that cursor-based pagination doesn't require other filters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like get_claim for single claim retrieval, so no strong exclusion is given.

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