register_claims

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the server generates every claim_id and that evidence is not accepted, but it does not mention side effects, duplicate handling, validation behavior, or batch-failure semantics. This is adequate but incomplete for a resource-creating tool.

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 two concise sentences with the core action and exclusion front-loaded. The second sentence adds a meaningful rationale rather than filler, so every sentence 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 presence of an output schema and nested ClaimDraft definitions gives the agent some structural grounding, but top-level parameters remain undocumented and there is no guidance on how to construct a valid claims batch. The description is sufficient for tool selection but thin for correct invocation.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters like research_id and claims. It does not: it only implicitly references claims through the tool's purpose and mentions claim_id, but leaves research_id, temporal_mode, atomicity_override, and client_ref semantics to the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('register') and resource ('new claims'), and explicitly excludes evidence, which distinguishes it from the bind_evidence and judge_evidence siblings. The phrase 'Register new claims only; does not accept evidence' makes the tool's scope immediately 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?

The description clearly states when not to use this tool: 'does not accept evidence' and explains why claim creation is separated from evidence judgment. It provides a clear boundary but does not explicitly name alternative tools such as bind_evidence or judge_evidence, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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