record_claims

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, open-world, mutating), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing a specific business rule: a quote that is not found in the source downgrades the verdict to cannot_assess. It also reveals the side effect of appending verdicts to the report and rendering it, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 dense sentences that front-load position and behavior with little waste. The 'Level 4, step 2' prefix is somewhat opaque but functions as an ordering cue, and every remaining clause (quote check, fallback, render, call guidance) 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?

A mutating, file-writing tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions needs more from the description than it provides, particularly on path/formats/report_dir. The workflow and fallback rule are covered, but the input surface is left largely unexplained.

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?

With 5 parameters and 0% top-level schema description coverage, the description must explain path, formats, judged_by and report_dir, but it only gestures at 'verdicts' and the source text. The agent is left guessing what path points to (source? report?), what formats does, and the role of judged_by.

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 specific actions (checks each quote against the source, records verdicts, renders the report) on a clear resource (claims), and names the upstream sibling prepare_claims. It is distinguishable from check_manuscript and check_references, though the cryptic 'Level 4, step 2' opener only carries meaning if the agent already knows the pipeline.

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?

Gives an explicit call directive: 'Give the verdicts of all claims from prepare_claims in one call,' which tells the agent the prerequisite step and that it should be a single batched invocation. It does not explicitly contrast with the other siblings (check_manuscript, check_references), so there is no when-not guidance.

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