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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds the non-obvious part: the refusal preconditions that make the call fail in practice. It further discloses the scope boundary that this is not a seal, which is exactly the kind of semantic distinction an agent cannot recover from the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the permission gate, then the refusal rules. Slightly awkward wrapping and the trailing 'the answer says where' is a touch cryptic, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still points the agent at where to find the sealing location. The only gap is the meaning of the id argument, which for a single-parameter state-transition tool is low risk.

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?

With 1 parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description never says what 'id' refers to (presumably the brief id), so the schema gap is not compensated. It is still close to self-evident given the title and the tight domain, so this is a minor rather than fatal omission.

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?

States a specific verb (freeze) on a specific resource (the brief) and explicitly contrasts it with 'seal', which is the related but distinct action performed by the person in STEMPA. It does not name a sibling tool directly (e.g. grill_brief / grill_gaps), so differentiation from the toolset relies partly on inference from the precondition list.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition ('only when the person asks') plus four concrete when-not conditions (empty section, open important question, unconfirmed assumption, minor question with no default). It also routes the agent to the alternative (sealing happens in the person's STEMPA account), leaving little to infer.

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