claims_who_holds

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

The description adds 'currently' and 'if anyone', indicating the result is a point-in-time holder that may be absent. With no annotations, it carries the behavioral burden, but it stops short of explaining what 'holds' means or what state changes (if any) occur; this is likely a read-only lookup, but that is left implicit.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without removing meaning.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so a terse description is justifiable. The main gap is the lack of usage/sibling guidance, but enough is present to call it once an entity_id is at hand.

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 has no property descriptions, so the description is the only semantic source; it merely maps 'this entity' to entity_id and says nothing about the ID format, domain meaning, or how absence is represented. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no parameter-level value.

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 phrase 'Who currently holds this entity' names a specific lookup action and resource, and the 'if anyone' qualifier makes the nullable outcome clear. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling claims_held_by, which appears to describe the same query.

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?

No statement of when to call this vs claims_held_by, claims_list, or claims_claim. The only contextual cue is the query-like wording, which leaves an agent to infer it is for checking current holders.

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