get_claims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently implies a read operation and mentions filtering capabilities, but omits significant behavioral details like live PACER refresh costs (include_live_pacer), pagination, and default sorting behavior.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by use case and filtering capabilities. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good overview of purpose, return content, and filter types, but misses critical context like pagination, sorting options, and the live PACER refresh behavior. This leaves gaps 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 coverage is only 46%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining output fields (amounts, claim types) and citing 'keyword search and date/number range filtering', but does not clarify individual parameters such as sort_order, sort_column, number_from/to, or page_size.

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 states 'Get the bankruptcy claims register' and specifies the content (amounts, claim type, creditor names, filing dates). It distinguishes the tool as focused on claims, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_creditors.

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 provides clear usage context by stating 'Essential for Chapter 11 analysis and creditor research.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use get_creditors instead.

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