start_claim

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does: it notes the tool returns a claim URL that requires browser action, mentions the expiration time, and points to the monitoring tool. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's side effects and follow-up actions.

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?

Four short sentences, with the main action first and no filler. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

For a no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the core flow: start, get URL, user action, expiry, and monitoring. It doesn't discuss failure handling, but the absence of parameters and the straightforward session flow make the description sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with 0 params, a baseline of 4 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 opens with 'Start a claim session to link this Relayer installation to an XNS account,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and goal. It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_claim_status by indicating it's the initiation step that returns a URL.

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?

It explicitly directs the user to 'use check_claim_status to monitor claim progress' after calling, providing a clear sequential guideline. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites, but the context makes the primary use case obvious.

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