get_claim_status

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

Annotations only cover read-only safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description adds substantial context: the 7-day link validity, polling cadence, the unknown-code error, and the critical caveat that a false `published` means the snippet must NOT be installed yet because the policy URL would be a dead link. That is real behavioral insight an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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 return shape are front-loaded and every clause carries actionable information (statuses, timing, placeholder substitution, pending items). It is a dense single paragraph that borders on run-on, but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value — and it does: all three status values, the real appId, snippet, policyUrl, the `published` flag and its consequence, plus the `pending` list of user-supplied details. An agent knows exactly what it will receive and what to do with it.

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% and the single `code` parameter is already documented as 'the claim code returned by claim_app (not the URL)'. The description references the claim code only implicitly, so it adds little beyond the schema — the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('check whether the user has confirmed a claim created with claim_app') and immediately states the return shape ({status: 'pending' | 'expired' | 'claimed'}). This cleanly separates it from siblings claim_app (creates the claim) and install_snippet (uses the result), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives explicit per-state routing: while 'pending' wait a few seconds and poll again, on 'expired' create a new claim, and on 'claimed' proceed to install. It also names the alternative action for the expired case, so the when/when-not decision is fully specified rather than inferred.

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