ps_get_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists what comes back but says nothing about permissions, behavior on an unknown claim_id, pagination of evidence rows, or side effects — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out (the description repeats them anyway). For a simple get-by-id tool this is near-adequate, but the undocumented config_path/periscope_path parameters and absence of any behavioral notes leave real gaps.

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% across three parameters. The description never mentions claim_id, config_path, or periscope_path, so the two optional path parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description and the agent must guess at their purpose.

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 resource ('one claim') and the payload it returns (verdict, evidence rows, source independence), so an agent knows this is a single-entity detail fetch. It is distinguishable from ps_list_claims by the word 'One', but siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'one claim in full' framing suggests calling this after a list/search returns a claim_id. There is no statement of when to prefer it over ps_list_claims or ps_corpus_search, and no prerequisites or failure conditions mentioned.

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