check_claims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that disclaimers/prohibitions are not flagged, which is a meaningful behavioral nuance. It also notes that HTML tags are ignored, which is a useful input-handling detail. It does not disclose output format or whether the tool returns matches, counts, or a pass/fail, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a scanning 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key scoping information is front-loaded. The first sentence defines the target precisely; the second sentence clarifies an important exclusion. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter scanning tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to scan for, what not to flag, and how the input is handled. The only missing piece is what the tool returns (e.g., list of flagged phrases, boolean, count), but that is not required by the rubric since there is no output schema. Still, a brief note on return format would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'text' is described as 'Plain text or HTML. HTML tags are ignored.' The description adds context about what kind of text is relevant (copy with performance claims) and the exclusion of disclaimers, which goes beyond the schema. Since there is only one parameter and the schema already covers it, the description's additional context earns a 4.

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 verb ('scan'), a specific resource ('copy'), and a precise target ('affirmative performance claims' in finance, gambling, and health advertising). It also explicitly excludes disclaimers/prohibitions, which distinguishes it from a generic keyword checker. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to detect affirmative performance claims in copy, especially in regulated advertising contexts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling list (check_keywords, check_translation, etc.) and the specific claim-focused language make the intended use clear. A small gap: no explicit 'use check_keywords for simple keyword matching' guidance.

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