Explain claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the kind of information returned (lifecycle stages, relations, evidence granularity), which goes beyond bare annotations. However, it doesn't describe output format, pagination, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply, so it adds moderate value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description doesn't explain the return structure or how the 'explain' information is presented (e.g., nested JSON, human-readable text). It also doesn't mention any constraints like required permissions or workspace handling. For a tool that likely returns complex claim details, this is a notable gap, though the basic purpose is clear.

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 67%: 'bank' and 'workspace' have descriptions, but 'claim_id' does not. The tool description doesn't clarify any parameters further, especially the undocumented claim_id. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, leaving the unidentified parameter ambiguous.

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 verb 'show' and the resource 'claim' with specific aspects: lifecycle, relations, and exact supporting evidence. This distinguishes it from siblings like recall (retrieve), record (create), correct (modify), and forget (delete) by focusing on detailed visualization rather than simple retrieval or mutation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions for exclusion. It doesn't mention whether it's preferred for debugging, auditing, or investigating claim states, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

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