claim_request_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication/session requirement and the 'completed' state precondition. However, it does not describe what 'claiming' does to the assets or the request, whether the operation is destructive or idempotent, or what the response contains.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact access note. The second sentence is slightly run-on, but it contains no filler and each clause carries useful operational information.

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 single-parameter action, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the required state of the request, and the auth steps. Minor gaps remain around the return value and how the request ID is obtained, but these do not block 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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' as a 'Verification request ID', with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds the context that the request must be completed, but no additional parameter syntax, format, or usage detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Claim'), a clear resource ('shared assets'), and a condition ('from a completed verification request'). It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_request_proofs or list_assets.

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?

It gives clear context: the request must be completed, and it explains the access prerequisite (Proof account, API key or start_login session). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the stated precondition is helpful for correct invocation.

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