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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a private credential is required, the call deliberately does not confer sealing authority, and a human must drive the resulting page ('never operate that page for them'). Only failure modes and repeat-call behavior are unaddressed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its return value, followed by the auth requirement and the safety constraints. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be elaborated further, and the nonce, authority boundary, and human-in-the-loop requirement are all stated. The only gap is the undocumented entry_id, which matters little for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It characterizes entry_nonce as 'private' and required, which adds useful sensitivity context, but entry_id is never explained. Minimal but adequate compensation.

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 specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('review') plus the concrete artifact returned ('confirmation_url'), and negates the sibling strategy_seal with 'Does not grant authority to seal'. The distinction from strategy_seal/strategy_validate is implied rather than explicitly named, but an agent can still separate them.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites and constraints: requires the private entry_nonce, and the organizer must complete the step in their own web session. It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this before strategy_seal' or naming the alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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