get_claims

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context that claims have response deadlines and that results are paginated, but it does not disclose whether this requires specific auth scopes beyond 'authenticated seller', nor what the compact list omits relative to get_claim_detail.

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-loads what a claim is and why it matters, then covers filters, pagination, and return shape. It is a bit dense but every sentence earns its place; the parenthetical Portuguese gloss is a minor 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?

Covers purpose, urgency, filters, pagination, and the compact return fields, and points to the sibling for full detail. With no output schema, it adequately enumerates the returned fields, though it could state auth requirements and whether status values are constrained to an enum.

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%, so descriptions already document all five parameters with defaults, ranges, and formats. The description reinforces the optional status filter and ISO 8601 date range but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (authenticated seller's claims), then parenthetically defines claims as buyer complaints opened against sales. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_claim_detail, which it explicitly routes to.

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?

Gives a clear reason to use it ('Open claims hurt seller reputation and have response deadlines, so use this to find claims needing attention') and points to get_claim_detail for full details. It does not mention when NOT to use it or other alternatives like get_returns, keeping it from a 5.

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