Get claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description goes beyond them by stating the failure mode ('returns the claim or a not-found error') and adding an interpretive caveat that review status and alignment signals are evidence records, not truth verdicts — context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the read action, then sequencing, then parameter resolution, then return behavior and the caveat. Nothing is padding and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract and does so ('returns the claim or a not-found error'). For a two-optional-parameter read tool, the sequencing, precedence, return behavior and interpretation caveat cover everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the id property already documents that it takes precedence over claim_id, so the description's precedence note is largely a restatement. Baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (read one saved claim) and scopes it further by stating what is bundled in the response (recorded evidence and alignment signals). The agent can distinguish it from list_claims and verify_claim without opening any sibling schema.

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?

'Use after list_claims' gives the sequencing precondition, and 'use verify_claim to replace its evidence' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-to-switch are explicit.

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