Get a claim's verdict

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the queued/decided state distinction, inclusion of receipt_id, verdict meanings, and the workspace scoping restriction.

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 tightly written sentences convey the return fields, possible states, verdict meanings, and scope restriction without wasted words. Key information 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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned, what the verdicts mean, and the workspace restriction. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 100% and the single claim_id parameter is already described as the ID returned by submit_claim. The description adds no meaningful parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving a claim's state, verdict, and receipt_id, and enumerates the possible verdict values. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_receipt or verify_receipt.

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 implies this tool is for checking a claim's status or verdict but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_receipt or list_claims. The workspace visibility constraint is a limitation, not usage direction.

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