claim_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral outcome: it reports only failures and remains silent when all claims still hold. This is meaningful beyond the tool name, though it does not mention side effects or permission requirements.

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 short sentences carry the full purpose, behavior, and result interpretation. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what its output looks like, and how to interpret silence. An agent can call this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 input schema already documents the single boolean parameter 'all' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It provides no extra detail about the parameter beyond what the schema states, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('re-run'), a clear resource ('recorded claims'), and states exactly what it reports (only those that no longer hold). It distinguishes itself from the sibling claim_record by focusing on verification rather than creation.

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 makes the usage context clear: verifying previously recorded claims by re-running them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the contrast with claim_record is evident and the behavior is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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