dsb_prepare_claim_form

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: the agent is expected to prompt the passenger for missing times, and must not infer compensation. It stops short of saying whether anything is persisted or what the prepared output looks like.

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 terse clauses plus a constraint — nothing is wasted, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than crispness. The most actionable constraint (no compensation inference) is buried as a trailing fragment.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a tool with four parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a nested journey object, however, the description leaves the agent without enough to know how to assemble the arguments or how this fits into the claim flow.

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 0% for the four top-level parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails. It never explains ticket_id vs journey_id vs evidence_id, nor when to supply the optional journey_details object; "ask the passenger for missing times" only faintly gestures at the optional actual_arrival field.

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?

"Prepare form fields" gives a verb and a loose resource, but which form (the claim form, per the tool name) and what preparing entails are left implicit. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling dsb_get_form_handoff, which sounds like it occupies adjacent territory.

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 hints at a workflow step (collect missing times from the passenger) but never says when to call this versus dsb_get_form_handoff or the listing tools. No preconditions, no exclusions, no mention of what to do if fields are already complete.

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