Read grouped claim sources

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by noting the records are 'immutable' and that results are a 'bounded page,' which clarifies pagination behavior and data characteristics. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 paginated tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage (claim ID, bounded page). It does not explain how to navigate to subsequent pages via cursor, but that is inferable from the schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references claim_id via 'dossier claim ID' and hints at pagination via 'bounded page,' but it does not explicitly explain limit or cursor semantics. The schema provides names, types, defaults, and constraints, which helps, but the description adds only marginal semantic value.

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 action ('read'), the target resource ('source records'), and the scope ('grouped claim sources'), and it requires a dossier claim ID. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'catalyst_edge_score', which likely performs scoring rather than reading sources.

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?

It gives a clear usage context by specifying it must be used with a dossier claim ID and that it returns a 'bounded page' (implying pagination). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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