is_search_claims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions that the tool 'returns claims with current status and amounts', but lacks details on pagination, search behavior, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond basic output.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and clearly indicates the resource 'insurance claims'. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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?

With 4 parameters (only 25% schema covered), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-informative. It omits the claim_type and limit parameters entirely, and does not explain the response format. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 25% (query documented in schema). The description adds meaning to the query parameter by listing example inputs (claim number, policy number, claimant name). However, claim_type and limit are not addressed, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 that the tool searches insurance claims by various criteria (claim number, policy number, claimant name, or status). It distinguishes from siblings like is_get_claim (single claim) and is_submit_claim (submission) by focusing on search functionality, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like is_get_claim for exact lookups, the description should mention usage context, but it does not.

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