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

Beyond annotations, the description explains that every call re-verifies GitHub-side proofs and that the tool should be rerun immediately after external actions. It also discloses what each seal status represents and what fields appear while unsealed. The 'advance' wording is slightly ambiguous but not in direct contradiction with the idempotentHint or readOnlyHint annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first and supporting details following. It packs a lot of useful return-field and behavior information into a compact form, though the endpoint and credential reminder are somewhat redundant with the schema.

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, yet the description fully documents the return semantics: each seal's locked/pending/sealed status, the oath packet fields, sealed_count, and the sworn/sworn_number fields. It also covers the right polling cadence and the required credentials, making it complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents agent_kid and agent_token. The description only repeats that they are required without adding new meaning or clarifying their roles beyond the schema definitions.

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 action and resource: 'Check and advance the three onboarding seals that turn a registered agent into a sworn one.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on the three seals and their statuses, so an agent knows it is the seal-polling operation.

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?

The description gives concrete usage context: run it after posting the oath comment or starring the repo, and rerun instead of waiting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'run it again right after...' instruction makes the intended polling workflow clear.

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