claim_promo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key requirement and state-changing nature (claiming). It also notes the limited availability. It could be more transparent about success/failure or idempotency, but covers the critical behavior.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the action and include prerequisites and key requirement without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 the essential context: what, prerequisites, and authentication. For a simple claim tool, it is sufficiently complete, though it could mention the outcome (e.g., sats credited) but is not critical given the schema.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter (promo_code with default), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema's own description, so the 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?

The description clearly states the action (claim) and the specific resource (free-sats install promo) with value and limit (100 sats, first 100 installs). It distinguishes itself from payment/withdrawal tools by focusing on the promotional claim.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: verified email via update_operator and a 3-hour-old operator account, plus the operator key requirement. It doesn't name alternatives, but there is no direct alternative, so the context is clear.

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