claim_dossier

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals idempotency (same session returns same grant, safe to retry), handles failure (402 not_paid until payment completed), and explains the return structure and tier variations. This is comprehensive and directly addresses operational behaviors an agent needs.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage, return details, and error handling without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values ({ token, entity_id, tier }) and how to use them. It also covers idempotency, retry safety, and error conditions. With no annotations, this is as complete as one could expect for a tool of this 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for session_id with a clear description. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining where to get the session_id (from the post-payment redirect after buy_dossier) and reiterating the format (cs_...). This goes slightly beyond the schema, so it earns a 4.

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 clearly states a specific action: redeem a paid Stripe Checkout session for a dossier access token. It uses a specific verb+resource (claim dossier) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing buy_dossier and get_dossier, which is exactly the kind of differentiation needed.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after the post-payment redirect following buy_dossier. It also tells the agent to pass the returned token to get_dossier, and explains when not to call (before payment completion), including the 402 not_paid failure and the retry guidance. This is explicit usage context with alternatives.

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