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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that sealing happens in memory, only ciphertext is stored, and the result is checked and recorded as the delivery. "Keep your own copy" hints that the sealed payload is not retrievable afterwards. Auth requirements and rate limits are still unstated.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then mechanics, then the funding precondition, then a usage caveat, then the guide link. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important mechanics: what happens to the content, what is stored, and what the call produces (a recorded delivery). It could still say what the agent receives back or whether an oversized or malformed file is rejected.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description adds little beyond restating that content is the whole file as text. The 2,000,000-character cap and the meaning of escrowId are left entirely to the schema.

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 concrete action and scope: deliver the whole file as text for confidential jobs, which is then sealed in memory, checked and recorded as the delivery. That is clearly distinct from submit_evidence or submit_proof, though the description never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Do not start until the funding is verified (get_sealed_brief opens then)" gives an explicit precondition and routes to a specific sibling for the check. It also says a plain file or public link is refused on a confidential escrow, which tells the agent when this call will fail, but it does not say which sibling to use when the job is not confidential.

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