get_claim_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by explaining the tool only reads status. It adds critical behavioral context like expiration timing, condition for not installing snippet, and error handling for unknown codes.

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?

Despite being lengthy, every sentence provides essential information. The structure flows logically from status outcomes to action items, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the return structure and behavior for each case. It covers the lifecycle from pending to claimed, including edge cases like expired and errors.

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 schema already describes the 'code' parameter, but the description adds the crucial clarification that it must be the `code` field from claim_app, not the URL. This adds value 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks claim status and specifies the different return states and their implications. It distinguishes itself from siblings like claim_app (which creates the claim) by focusing on status checking.

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 description provides explicit instructions on how to handle each status: wait and retry for pending, recreate for expired, and detailed steps for claimed including not installing snippet if published is false. This gives clear when-to-use and follow-up actions.

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