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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false, but the description adds significant behavioral context: 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly.' It also explains that the registry never sees the content and that re-sending records a CHECK. This goes beyond the annotation, providing valuable warnings about side effects and idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear structure: first explains the primary action, then the CHECK nuance, then a prominent WRITES warning. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. The only minor issue is the lack of a separate sentence for usage guidance, but as a standalone description it is efficient.

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 essential behavior (publishing a hash, CHECK on re-send, state change) but omits details on the 'secret' parameter and the exact signature construction, which are left to the schema. There is no output schema, so the response format is not described. For a tool with four parameters and minimal annotations, the description could be more complete, but it provides the core context needed for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 75% (hash, label, signature have descriptions; secret lacks one). The description provides high-level context about the hash and the label's role in CHECK behavior, but does not explain the 'secret' parameter or the signature's format beyond what the schema states. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the coverage 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Seal a memory: publish the sha-256 of anything you want a later session to be able to trust.' It specifies a concrete action (publishing a hash) and the resource (memory/registry), and explains the CHECK behavior on re-sending. This is far from a tautology and distinguishes the tool's core purpose.

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 does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'legacy_manifest_seal' or 'seals'. It implies a use case (sealing memories for trust) but offers no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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