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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the access model (public, no key), the witness semantics (door_observed — the door ran in the agent's own process), and the crucial scoping rule that comparison is the agent's report against the door's record, not the outside system's answer. It stops short of rate limits, failure modes, or whether results are cached/immutable.

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?

Five sentences with the return contract front-loaded, but 'THE TICK' is an unexplained opener that spends space without information, and the identifier/return details partially restate the schema. Jargon density makes it slower to parse than its length warrants.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must enumerate results — it does (verdict LINES_UP/MISMATCH, finding classes, door head, seal time, Bitcoin batch status). Combined with the either-or input contract and the public/no-key note, an agent has what it needs; only unexplained domain vocabulary keeps this from being fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the per-parameter descriptions are already in the schema (seal = 64 hex stamp code, trip_id minted at departure). The description adds genuine semantics the schema does not: either identifier is accepted to resolve the same trip, and it repeats the 64-hex constraint explicitly.

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 and resource: given a returned seal or trip id, return what was sealed (verdict, finding classes, door head, seal time, Bitcoin status). This is clearly distinguishable from verify_anchor. However, the opening 'THE TICK' and heavy jargon (Knox, door) add noise without clarifying the resource being verified.

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?

Provides useful context ('Public, no key') and implies the trigger (a trip has returned, you hold a seal or trip id). But it never states when to use this instead of the sibling verify_anchor, nor any exclusions or error conditions. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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