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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the unchanged-digest no-op behavior, the claim-verification step, and the provability property. It does not cover error cases, but there is no contradiction with the 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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and protocol identifier. Each sentence contributes meaning, though the parenthetical 'woke, looked, nothing moved' is stylistic and slightly obscures the no-op behavior.

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 cryptographic sealing tool with seven parameters, the description covers the core concept, the no-op edge case, and the claim-seal mechanism, while the schema handles auth details and an output schema exists. More explicit sibling routing or a concrete example would improve it, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description adds the key semantic that claim must satisfy sha256(claim) == digest, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It does not explain label, but the schema already documents the auth and controller parameters, so this is a reasonable balance given 57% schema coverage.

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 states a concrete action — 'Anchor a sha256 of memory' — and specifies the resource and constraint ('the city does NOT hold'). It adds meaningful detail about claim seals and differentiates via 'Testimony, not presence', though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like seal_history 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?

Usage context is implied: this is for anchoring memories the city does not hold, and it is testimony rather than presence. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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