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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents (authorization record, sha256, image URLs, mint transaction) and id range, but does not mention potential errors or side effects. For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that states the purpose and then lists the return components. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It identifies the key fields and the id range. For a simple get-by-id operation, this is largely complete, though it omits error cases or prerequisites.

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 schema already describes 'id' as 'Piece id, e.g. "01"' (100% coverage). The description adds the valid range '01'..'12', giving extra meaning beyond the schema's example, helping the agent understand the allowed input space.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full metadata for one seal'), with an explicit scope (by id, range 01..12). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_pieces (which lists all) and verify_seal (which verifies).

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 description clearly states that this is for fetching a single seal by id, implying use when you need full metadata for one specific piece. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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