check_claim_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool polls every 10 seconds, lists the meaning of each state, and states that it automatically proceeds upon reaching STATE_3. This goes beyond the basic 'poll status' phrasing, though it does not detail timeout error behavior or return format.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates states and the auto-proceed behavior. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the polling interval, state meanings, and auto-proceed behavior, providing a good overall context. However, it does not explain what happens if the timeout_ms expires (e.g., whether it returns an error or a timeout state), which is a minor gap for an agent invoking a long-polling operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for claim_id and timeout_ms. The description itself adds no direct parameter semantics but the schema already provides sufficient information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the status of a claim session.' It further distinguishes the tool by detailing the session states (STATE_1, STATE_2, STATE_3), which ties directly to sibling tools like start_claim and check_relayer_health, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage after start_claim by referencing claim sessions and the 'claim_id returned by start_claim' in the schema. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the polling context and state definitions make it clear when this tool should be used (to wait for claim completion).

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