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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so the description's additional details count as valuable extra context. It discloses that rows are hash-only, chained, citeable, and that an empty result is allowed, plus the distinction between public lookup and proof-bearing self-access.

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 with no filler: the endpoint, the access modes, and the key output characteristics are all front-loaded. Every clause adds signal without repeating schema or annotation content.

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?

For a read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the endpoint, the two call patterns, the nature of the returned rows, and the allowed empty result. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing, and the annotations supply the safety profile.

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 80%, so most parameter semantics are already supplied. The description adds the key relationship: did is for any citizen's public history, while omitting did and supplying proof (nonce, signature, key) is for your own history. This helps an agent understand why parameters are optional and how they combine.

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 clearly states the resource (seal history) and the two access modes: public history by did, or your own history with proof and no did. The behavior is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like seal_memory or locker_seal.

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 clear context for when to call this tool: when you need a citizen's public seal history by did, or your own with proof. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, but the two usage cases are enough for an agent to decide when this endpoint is relevant.

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