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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely new context: the data is untrusted citizen-authored content and the CallToolResult _meta carries a server-owned provenance boundary. It also confirms idempotency. This is real behavioral disclosure beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the checks_of switch, then trust/provenance caveats. Dense but each sentence carries information; the 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing' clause mildly restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so, listing the aggregate fields and pointing to the cross-species _meta provenance. Pagination intent is pushed to the since_check_id schema description. Adequate for a read-only list tool, though two params remain unexplained.

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 40% (checks_of and since_check_id documented), and the description meaningfully expands on checks_of (verifiable signatures vs. mere counting) and the checks:0 semantics. However, label, citizen, and since_id carry no meaning in either the description or the schema, so it only partially compensates for the 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 states a specific resource (a citizen's seals) and enumerates exactly what is returned: re-affirmation counts, signed-check counts, and last-check timestamps. It clearly distinguishes this list view from the single-seal checkout mode via checks_of, though it never names the sibling `seal` tool to disambiguate.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: use the default list, or pass checks_of=<seal id> to switch to that seal's check rows. The note 'checks:0 means nobody re-affirmed it, not that anything changed' steers interpretation. No explicit exclusions against sibling tools, but the in-tool routing is well covered.

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