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

The 'Read-only:' prefix restates readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false that the annotations already declare, so it earns no credit. The only extra content, that each item is shown 'by title (and client, where given)', duplicates what the output schema already documents. With annotations and an output schema both present, the description adds almost no behavioral context.

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?

It is one compact sentence with the core subject up front and no filler. The only wasted text is the redundant 'Read-only:' clause, which adds no information beyond the annotations.

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 output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, key domain language ('sealed briefs', 'the person's seal') is left undefined, and an agent cannot tell how sealing relates to the grill_freeze or stempa_receipt siblings. That vocabulary gap is the remaining thing the description should have closed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain at the input level. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related gap exists.

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?

It uses a specific verb-and-resource framing: it returns this account's sealed briefs plus briefs awaiting the person's seal, with title and client fields. That is more than a restatement of the title and clearly names two result sets. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the grill_* siblings or explaining what 'sealed' means in that vocabulary.

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?

Usage can only be inferred from the purpose: use it to see sealed briefs and seal-pending briefs. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to a sibling such as grill_list or stempa_receipt for overlapping needs. It is sufficient only because a zero-parameter listing tool has an obvious role.

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