vitna_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally: it discloses the return shape ({ claimed, claim_url: null, claim_note, what_claiming_gets_you }), states that the claim link is never provided, forbids searching for it, and prescribes the exact user-facing message when claimed is false. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape well, but the second half is a long parenthetical-laden sentence mixing behavioral rules and operational detail. It is informative but could be more economized; still, every clause earns its place given the no-annotation burden.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call, what is returned, what is forbidden, and the exact user-facing script when the account is unclaimed. Complete for its complexity.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4; there is nothing to document and the description does not over-explain. Correctly silent on inputs.

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?

States a specific question-based purpose ('Ask whether this VITNA account has been claimed by a real person yet') with a clear resource and scope. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is distinctive enough to differentiate from the compliance-oriented siblings.

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?

Provides clear triggers: 'when the user asks about their VITNA account or when you are told evidence is not being kept.' It does not name alternatives or when *not* to call, but the context is explicit for a novel tool.

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