assess_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and deterministic, and that it does not approve or issue payment. This is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't describe what the assessment returns, whether it's a score, a recommendation, or a decision, or any side effects beyond not approving/issuing payment.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the key behavioral constraint ('Read-only deterministic assessment') and a clear exclusion ('Does not approve or issue a payment'). Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a rich input schema and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, the description could say more about what 'assessment' means operationally: what kind of result is produced, whether it's a recommendation, a risk score, or a policy check. The exclusion of approval/payment is helpful but the positive behavior is underspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description doesn't explain the 'claim' parameter at all, but the schema itself is rich: it defines a Claim object with required fields, types, patterns, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('claim'), and clarifies that it is read-only and does not approve or issue a payment. This distinguishes it from payment-related tools, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling search_policy.

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 when to use it: when a read-only deterministic assessment of a claim is needed, and when not to use it (not for approval or payment). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_policy or state conditions for choosing this over alternatives.

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