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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It discloses authentication (bearer token), cost/payment methods, identity mapping, the underlying chain (opBNB), reveal behavior (claim text and salt publish automatically), and a critical semantic limitation (attests when, not whether). This goes well beyond what annotations could provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering auth, cost, usage, and behavior. It is not front-loaded with the core purpose (payment comes first), but remains compact and structured enough for a detailed tool.

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 tool's complexity (payment options, identity, reveal delay, chain), the description is complete: it covers usage, constraints, costs, the timing semantics, and points to attest_spec for verification. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

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 0%, so the description compensates by fully explaining both parameters: payload is a 'claim string,' and revealDelayHours is optional, ranged 1-720 with default 72. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Seal any claim on chain now, reveal it later' and 'attests WHEN you said it, never whether it is true.' It uses a specific verb ('seal') with a resource ('claim') and differentiates from sibling tools like attest_spec and verify_reveal by explicitly pointing to attest_spec for verification.

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 provides usage context: 'Send your claim as the payload string with an optional revealDelayHours' and explains payment/authentication requirements. It implies when to use this tool (to make an attestation) and directs to attest_spec for verification, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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