statefarm_claim_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It communicates a read-only action via 'Check' and discloses exactly what the call returns (status, adjuster contact, timeline, action items). It does not mention authorization or staleness, but for a simple status lookup this is transparent enough.

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?

A single sentence delivers the action, the resource, and the output contents without waste. The most important qualifier ('existing') is placed early, and every phrase earns its place.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient: it names the resource, the action, and the response fields. Optional policy_number and required claim_number are covered in the schema, so the main missing context is any error or availability caveat, which is minor.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about claim_number or policy_number beyond the generic 'existing claim,' which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.

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 ('Check') and resource ('status of an existing State Farm insurance claim'), and enumerates the return values. This clearly separates it from siblings like statefarm_file_claim or statefarm_policy_details, which target different actions and resources.

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 phrase 'existing claim' gives clear context that this tool is for already-filed claims, not for filing or quoting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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