List claims

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: 'Returns claim rows and count' discloses the response shape (important since there is no output schema), and the caveat that a verified status means evidence was submitted, not that the claim is true prevents a semantic misread. It stops short of ordering/pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose and filters first, then sibling routing, then return shape and the status caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema beyond the minimum.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape ('claim rows and count') and the semantic caveat on the verified status. All three params are covered, so for a simple filtered-list tool nothing material is missing.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults, bounds, and the same verified-means-not-proven caveat. The description restates the filter axes ('source item or review status') at a high level without adding syntax or format detail, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List saved checkable claims') plus the optional filter axes, and the following sentences name the sibling tools it feeds (get_claim, verify_claim) and the one that creates rows (extract_claims). An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use to select claim IDs for get_claim or verify_claim; use extract_claims to add claims.' This gives both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else, with named alternatives rather than inference.

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