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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description bears the burden of explaining the write behavior. It explicitly adds 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly' and discloses the irrevocable 'no re-seal' constraint, which goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 terse sentences with the purpose and maintainer restriction front-loaded and the WRITES warning placed last. Every sentence carries necessary operational information and there is no filler.

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 critical invocation context is present: who may call it, the preconditions that gate it, and the fact that it is non-repeatable. However, with no output schema the description omits what a successful call returns, and it never defines the secret parameter, leaving meaningful gaps for a state-changing tool.

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 only 33%, and the description only loosely maps 'chain's prefix' to log and 'public post' to post_id while never explaining the secret parameter. With no schema description for secret, an agent cannot determine what value to pass, creating a significant parameter-semantics gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'seal a legacy manifest row over one chain's prefix.' This clearly identifies the operation and is distinct from the generic seal/manifest sibling tools, especially with the 'no re-seal' qualification.

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 strong when-to-use guidance: it is 'Maintainer only', is refused unless the public post carried the exact current digest for the full pre-publication interval, and is refused entirely once a manifest exists. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for non-legacy seals, leaving the sibling comparison implicit.

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