List warranty claims

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral guidance beyond annotations: the action object must be passed verbatim, never hand-crafted, and it must come from a specific server-provided action (`activeWarrantyClaimsAction` / `showActiveWarrantyClaimsAction`).

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and the critical constraint about passing the action verbatim.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: the purpose, the source of the action object, the verbatim-handling requirement, the appropriate timing, and the read-only nature. No critical operational detail 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?

The schema already describes the `action` parameter well, including that it must contain form.meta.href and must not be hand-crafted, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by naming the specific action names to look for and by reinforcing verbatim passing, which helps the agent understand where to obtain the parameter from prior tool responses.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "List the account's active warranty claims," with the explicit scope of "active" claims. It also identifies the underlying mechanism (server-provided action) and the use case before filing or attaching evidence, making it easily distinguishable from siblings like order, profile, and get_product.

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 states exactly when to use it: "Use to show the user their open claims before filing or attaching evidence" and points to the related sibling `upload_attachment`. It gives clear context by requiring an authenticated navigation or order detail source, but does not explicitly call out when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the sequential pointer to upload_attachment.

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