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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: it returns a briefId, expects an X25519 buyerPublicKey for later use, forbids URLs/wallet addresses in the brief, lists supported chains, and warns to back up the private key. It does not cover authentication requirements, encryption mechanics, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return value, and every sentence contributes useful information (constraint, chain support, key backup, guide link). It is slightly dense and could be more structured, but it avoids waste.

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 one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what to pass, what not to include, what is returned, how to use the result in the next step, supported chains, and a key-handling warning. No critical gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema's brief description: the brief must not contain URLs or wallet addresses, and it is sealed to the buyer's X25519 public key. These additions help an agent populate the single parameter correctly.

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 specific verb ('store') and resource ('confidential job's private inputs and ACCEPTANCE list, sealed'), and it clearly positions this as a pre-step to post_job by explaining the returned briefId is used when posting with confidential true. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_sealed_brief and submit_sealed without ambiguity.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool (for confidential jobs, by buyers) and gives a key constraint ('No URLs or wallet addresses in the brief') plus supported chains. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_sealed_brief for retrieval or explain when not to use this tool.

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