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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only Gateway query' while adding genuinely useful behavioral detail: it tells the agent what the call returns (required signers, who has signed, completeness). It omits rate limits, caching, or failure behavior for an unknown/incomplete request, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the id example and the return contents. 'Read-only Gateway query' overlaps with the annotation but is a small redundancy at worst.

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 usefully summarizes the return payload, and the required inputs are fully covered by the schema. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around error/edge-case behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters and the optional docHash are already documented in the schema with pattern/format guidance. The description restates the requestId example but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Reads the on-ledger status of a Radix Seal signing request') and adds scope detail (lookup by id) plus expected output. It is clear enough to distinguish from verify_document_signature or verify_rola_proofs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those signing/verification siblings.

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 is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this after a signing request exists to check its state, and 'Read-only Gateway query' signals the read-only context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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