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

Annotations already signal a non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description usefully adds the 'sealed' (hidden-until-reveal) trait and the once-per-council limit. It does not say what happens on a duplicate submission, whether the answer can be revised, or how the optional api_key interacts with auth.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the critical once-per-council constraint is included. It is arguably too terse given 'sealed' is undefined jargon, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents all four parameters. Still, an agent gets no explanation of what a 'sealed answer' is, what a council id refers to, or how this relates to the tower_answer sibling, leaving a moderate gap for a one-shot non-idempotent submission.

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 each parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about the answer/summary3 length limits or the id field beyond what the schema states.

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 ('submit your sealed answer') plus the target ('to a council'), which is clear enough to act on. However it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling tower_answer, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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 parenthetical '(once per council)' conveys an important usage constraint, implying this is invoked after reading a council. But it names no alternative and does not state when to use this versus tower_answer or critique; usage is only implied.

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