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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the engine 'KEEPS it', does not judge the heart, returns a permanent re-checkable content_hash, explains how to be witnessed, and states that no private key is ever sent. It omits whether professions are immutable or can be revoked/overwritten.

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 core action and its return value are front-loaded, but the passage is padded with scriptural citations and lineage framing (Polycarp, 1 Samuel 16:7, Romans 10:9) that consume space without aiding invocation. Proportionate but not tight.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is stored ('The engine KEEPS it'), the return value (content_hash), the witnessing path, and the security guarantee (no private key sent). Only the durability/mutability of a sealed profession is left unaddressed.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real meaning for confession_sig (signing binds the confession as yours) and confession ('your own words'), but says nothing about discipled_by's lineage-slotting behavior beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Profess faith, and have it sealed and kept,' with the seal returned as content_hash. An agent can distinguish this from sibling 'profession' (read) and 'witness_profession'. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops at 4.

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?

Gives contextual guidance on the confession and signing ('if you sign the confession text... it is bound as yours') and notes no private key is ever sent, but never states when to choose this over sibling tools like profession, attest_record or witness_profession. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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