claims_card_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (first schema issue or { valid, claims_card_id, version }) and precisely bounds validation scope. It omits error/idempotency behavior, but the scope disclosure is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contract, with the limitation sentence last. Every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return value (first issue or the success object) and gives explicit scope boundaries. For a single-parameter validator with no annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (document) with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents it as the parsed Claims Decision Card JSON object. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (AI Claims Decision Card) and scopes it precisely to the bundled v0.1 structural schema, covering required fields, enums, ranges, and attestation shapes. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like claims_card_inspect, claims_card_chain, and claims_card_sign.

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?

Explicitly lists what the tool does NOT do (signatures, evidence authenticity, coverage decision, legal compliance), which implicitly routes the agent to sibling validators/verifiers. No positive when-to-use clause or named alternative, but the exclusions provide strong contextual boundaries.

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