claim_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only' (reinforcing but not contradicting) and specifying the return contents including 'snapshot/commit' and 'status history,' which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. There are no side effects to disclose. It adds context about the data scope without redundancy.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('A claim's full record') and then lists the specific data components. There is no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the 'Read-only' note is a concise behavioral flag.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It enumerates all the data categories an agent would expect (text, status, confidence, kind, snapshot/commit, evidence states, status history). There are no missing prerequisites, side effects, or return-format caveats that would prevent correct invocation.

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% — the claim_id parameter already has a detailed description with an example and source ('from analyze or claim_list'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage, the baseline of 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 states a specific purpose: retrieving a claim's full record, enumerating the exact fields (text, status, confidence, kind, snapshot/commit, evidence, status history). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like evidence_inspect (which focuses on evidence) and claim_list (which lists claims). The verb is implicit in the tool name 'inspect' but the description is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage: if you need a single claim's full record, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. It doesn't say 'use claim_list for a list of claims' or 'use evidence_inspect for evidence details.' Guidance is implied by the resource scope but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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