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

The description discloses irreversibility ("Once sealed it cannot change except through escalation answers"), a behavioral trait not captured by the annotations, which only cover openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints. It does not describe what the tool returns or what permissions are required, but the core mutation semantics are clear.

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 action and immediately followed by the precondition and the consequence. No sentence is redundant or padded.

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?

For a two-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the immutability consequence. It stops short of explaining the result of sealing or the meaning of the seat link, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, including nested field descriptions and the note that card fields must come from the principal, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the implied constraint that the card must be principal-confirmed, which is not parameter-specific.

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 ("Seal") and resource ("your principal's Intent Card"), plus the state transition it causes. An agent can immediately distinguish it from sibling tools like answer_escalation or get_brief, which read or modify other artifacts.

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?

"Only after they confirmed every line" gives a clear precondition for invocation, and the mention of escalation answers implicitly routes the agent elsewhere when change is needed. It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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