Record a delivery claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that schema plus signature are validated and the signature must recover to buyerAddress, that the write goes to an append-only ledger, that priorClaimId is signed into the claim so a host cannot strip it, and that this is a receipt rather than a reputation score. It leaves gaps on idempotency (what happens if the same claimId is submitted twice), error/validation failure behavior, and any auth expectations beyond signing.

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 the action, then ordering, then the optional-chaining caveat — the information hierarchy is sound. It loses a little to redundancy ("It is optional and omitted on your first claim" restates the schema) and to a dangling pointer to "DECISIONS.md D-006," which an agent may not be able to read.

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 14-parameter, deeply nested mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral frame: signing/validation, append-only storage, timing relative to settlement, and the optional chaining mechanism. The remaining detail lives in the schema, which is fully documented.

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%, so baseline would be 3; the description still adds real value by explaining the purpose and chain-detection rationale of priorClaimId, which the schema only states mechanically. The other high-complexity parameters (measured, externalRefs) get no narrative treatment in the description, leaving it just above baseline.

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 and resource ("Record a signed delivery claim"), pins the triggering context ("after an x402 capacity settlement") and enumerates the asset types covered. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read path by naming get_delivery_history as the way claims are read back.

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 clear timing and actor: "The buyer agent calls this AFTER paying, once it knows whether what was promised actually arrived," and routes readers to get_delivery_history. It also states the priorClaimId condition (previous claim about the SAME sellerAddress, omitted on first claim). It stops short of stating when NOT to call it — e.g. before settlement closes, or for a dispute already in progress.

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