get_claim_detail

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 discloses a genuine behavioral trait — graceful degradation where messages are omitted if that endpoint is unavailable — which is real context beyond structured fields. It stops short of stating permissions, rate limits, or how many messages count as 'recent', keeping it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, usage guidance second, and the degradation caveat last. It is somewhat dense, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (type, status, stage, reason, order id, parties, resolution, messages) and clarifying buyer/seller party roles. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result is 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 coverage is 100% and the single claim_id parameter is already documented as 'Numeric claim id from get_claims'. The description references get_claims but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get the full details of a single claim') and enumerates the returned facets, making it clearly distinct from the sibling get_claims (list) and send_claim_message (write). An agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow position: 'Use this after get_claims to understand a specific claim before replying with send_claim_message.' It names both the prerequisite tool and the follow-up tool, leaving no inference required.

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