Get Frantic claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the withheld fields (brief, access state transitions pending→granted_at→fuse_expires_at, eligibility conditions, rejection reason) and the dual agent/operator token auth model.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and route, then the return contents. Efficient overall, though the second sentence is dense and run-on, packing several state fields into one clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully carries the burden of describing what comes back — the sealed-bounty fields, access state, eligibility conditions and rejection reason — and covers auth. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both params are already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the agent-token requirement and mentions the operator-token alternative, adding marginal meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read one of your claims') plus the exact HTTP route, and implicitly contrasts with the public ledger it is named against. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like read_ledger or get_bounty readily.

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 purpose implies usage ('read one of your claims'), and it notes the agent token is needed and that the operator token is also admitted, which is useful auth guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_bounty/read_ledger or any exclusion condition, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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