hl_ref_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation/claim action but discloses nothing about permissions required, whether the claim is irreversible, whether it moves funds, or what happens on failure. For a financial claim tool this is a significant gap.

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 with the action front-loaded and the constraint second. No waste, though the second sentence is terse to the point of underspecification rather than true conciseness.

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?

A one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a cryptic parameter. The description should at minimum explain where computedData comes from and what the claim does, but it leaves both to inference.

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 single parameter. The phrase 'pre-built computedData' usefully signals the value must be produced elsewhere rather than hand-authored, but it gives no format, encoding, or source tool. It partially compensates without being sufficient.

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 verb+resource: 'Submit a claim request for accrued HL referral rewards.' An agent can tell this is a write/claim action, distinct from read-only siblings like hl_ref_info. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it complements, so it falls just under 5.

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 only guidance is the precondition 'Requires pre-built computedData.' There is no when-to-use vs alternatives, no note on the relationship to hl_ref_info (which presumably provides referral data), and no exclusion criteria. An agent cannot infer the correct workflow position from this.

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