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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds only cryptic timing and outcome hints ('best pass becomes your card') without explaining what is sealed, whether it is reversible, or what happens to unselected passes.

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 very short and front-loads the timing rule, with no filler text. However, its terseness comes at the expense of clarity, and the sentence structure is more poetic than operational.

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 final, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition should explain what sealing produces and what 'card' means. It leaves the agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 single forge_handle parameter is fully documented in the schema as the handle returned by enter_forge. The description adds no further syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond that, so the baseline is 3.

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 never states a concrete verb and resource; 'your best pass becomes your card' and 'Final' are metaphorical and do not make clear that this seals a lice session. An agent could not reliably distinguish it from seal_forge based on this text.

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 implies a timing rule ('Stop before the third pass') and terminal status ('Final'), but gives no explicit when-to-use conditions or alternatives among enter_lice, lice_run, lice_status, or seal_forge. The guidance is too implicit.

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