get_claim_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Check claim history') and explains what information is returned (claim status, count, and token mints). However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects, but for a simple read tool, this is sufficient.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose, then details what is checked. It is concise without unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from details), yet it is efficient and to the point.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple query tool. It tells the agent what to expect (claim status, count, and token mints). However, it lacks information on edge cases, such as what happens if the user hasn't claimed anything or if the user ID is invalid, which would be helpful but not critical given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% (only one parameter, githubUserId, which is described as 'GitHub numeric user ID'). The description adds context by explaining what the tool does with that user ID (checks their claim history), which is helpful. However, since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add much beyond that.

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 uses a clear verb ('Check') and specific resource ('claim history'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it checks 'whether they have claimed, claim count, and which token mints they claimed from'. This is specific and unambiguous, differentiating it from other get_* tools that focus on tokens or pools.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to check a GitHub user's claim history), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Unlike the high-scoring example, it doesn't name alternative tools or exclude scenarios, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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