claims_card_validate

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

No annotations are provided; the description describes the return values and checks performed but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a read-only validation tool, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded, and uses two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and behavior without extraneous information.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, checks, and return format. It lacks information about whether the tool modifies state, but for a validation tool this is acceptable.

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 provides a single parameter 'document' with a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so 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 tool validates a specific document type (AI Claims Decision Card JSON) against a versioned spec (v0.1). It lists specific checks, distinguishing it from sibling card validators like decision_card_validate or ai_evidence_validate.

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 implies use when you have a Claims Decision Card JSON to validate, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., claims_card_inspect), nor does it state when not to use it.

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