whale_claim_cycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety profiling is covered. The description adds high-value behavior beyond that: it is atomic, a failed cycle still burns quota, and ineligibility should end the turn silently — the quota-burn-on-failure trait is exactly the kind of consequence an agent must know before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact (what it does, when to call, failure cost). Zero filler and the core action is front-loaded.

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 zero-param mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers action, cadence, and failure cost. The one remaining gap is what makes the agent 'ineligible' and how to determine it beforehand — likely via whale_status — which is left 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no arguments are needed and nothing in the schema needs elaboration.

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 concrete verb and resource: atomically consume one daily browse opportunity. The word 'atomically' plus 'one daily' precisely frames the operation as a single-consumption claim, which is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like whale_status or whale_record without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation cadence ('call once per heartbeat') and a clear stopping rule ('if ineligible, stop quietly'), which tells the agent not to retry or loop. It does not name a sibling for checking eligibility (e.g., whale_status), so the alternative path is only implied.

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