hl_ref_claim

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the prerequisite that computedData must be pre-built, but says nothing about irreversibility of the claim, auth requirements, or failure modes beyond what annotations supply.

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 precondition second; no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with an undocumented single required parameter and no output schema, the definition omits how to obtain computedData, what the claim actually does, and whether it can be undone. An agent has no basis for calling it correctly from this text alone.

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 0% and the single parameter is an untyped string, so the description carries the full burden. 'Pre-built computedData' hints the value is derived elsewhere, but it never explains the format, source, or content of that blob, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call this tool.

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 names a specific verb ('Submit a claim request') and resource ('accrued HL referral rewards'), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like hl_ref_info or hl_builder_referral. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 states one real precondition ('Requires pre-built computedData'), which is a genuine usage constraint. However, it gives no guidance on when to claim versus checking eligibility via hl_ref_info, nor how or where computedData is produced.

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