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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the error path (human_confirmation_required for pending entries) and warning that legacy receipt/handle arguments are ignored and are never approval credentials. That adds real behavioral context beyond structured fields, though it does not describe idempotency or re-read semantics explicitly.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core identity ('read acknowledgment, never creates') is front-loaded and the routing/legacy-argument caveats follow in priority order.

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 an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the description covers the critical behavioral facts: this is a read, it cannot seal, and the failure mode for unconfirmed entries. The remaining gap is guidance on where entry_id/entry_nonce come from in the prepare-then-seal flow.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies the two optional legacy parameters (confirmation_handle, validation_receipt_id), stating they are ignored and not credentials, while the two required parameters entry_id and entry_nonce receive no explanation of source, format, or expected provenance.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read acknowledgment of an already human-confirmed seal') and immediately draws the boundary against its closest sibling, strategy_prepare_seal, by stating it can NEVER create a seal. An agent can distinguish the read-side seal lookup from the preparation tool without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit when-not ('pending entries return human_confirmation_required') and routes the agent to the correct alternative action ('Give the preparation's confirmation_url to the organizer instead'). This is exactly the kind of conditional branch an agent needs to avoid mis-invoking a read tool as a write.

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