File a warranty claim

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real value by disclosing defaulting behavior (status defaults to filed, filedOn defaults to today) and the downstream consequence that stale claims surface in what_needs_attention. It doesn't say anything about the returned record, which leaves a small gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the what, then the when, then the follow-up path. No filler and the essential prerequisite is placed before the alternative-tool reference.

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 nine-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers required fields, defaults, provenance of the warrantyId, and the lifecycle handoff to update_warranty_claim. It is nearly complete, though it never mentions that closure fields (resolution, resolvedOn) can also be supplied at creation time.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description goes slightly beyond it by stating the status and filedOn defaults, which the schema does not spell out for status, so it is a baseline-level contribution rather than a strong one.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Records a claim made under one of an item's warranties," and enumerates the core payload (problem, reference, status). It is clearly distinguishable from update_warranty_claim, which is named separately as the follow-up path.

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 names the trigger condition ("when the person says they've contacted the maker or seller about a fault"), the prerequisite ("get the warrantyId from get_item"), and the alternative for later changes ("Follow it up later with update_warranty_claim"). That covers when, how to prepare, and what to use instead.

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