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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark it idempotent, non-destructive, and not read-only), the description adds that it 'Never spends, captures, or starts a payment' and that 'The export remains a Zambo claim, not issuer authentication.' Those are useful disambiguations, though it does not describe what sealing actually locks or whether branding edits are reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by prerequisites and caveats. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

Given the rich schema (88% coverage), existing annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key operational context: session match, pass requirement, and non-payment nature. It does not cover the branding action, but the schema's action enum description does, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 already 88%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description says the tool 'Requires... an active pass,' while the schema marks _zambo_key (the active Day Pass key) as optional and does not list it among required parameters. That added claim conflicts with the schema and could mislead an agent about required inputs.

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 and resource: 'Seals a closed workflow for durable export.' This clearly distinguishes it from the closing sibling workflow_close, but it omits the tool's second action ('branding' from the action enum), which means an agent could miss that the tool can also edit post-seal branding.

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 provides clear prerequisites: 'Requires the matching job session and an active pass.' That tells the agent when the tool is usable, but it never names an alternative or explicitly says when not to use this tool versus siblings such as workflow_close.

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