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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: results are binary MCP resources, the connector rejects payloads over 140,000 characters, and inputs must be actual bytes or reachable URLs. This overlaps with destructiveHint=false by confirming the original is preserved. It does not address auth for the private_seed beyond the schema's warning, but the disclosure is richer than typical.

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 primary action and effect, followed by the result-format constraint and the input requirement. No filler, though the limit sentence could be tightened into the result-format clause.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by stating results are binary MCP resources with a size ceiling. With only two well-documented required params, a nested sealed_file object, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing.

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%, so sealed_file and private_seed are already fully documented with their oneOf constraints and warnings. The description only reinforces that inputs must be real bytes or reachable URLs, adding little beyond the schema's own 'Claude attachment IDs and local paths are not downloadable URLs' note. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and outcome: 'Return a new clean cover with the hidden payload removed; preserve the original sealed file.' This distinguishes it from seal_files (which creates the seal), verify_sealed_file (which checks it), and retrieve_secret_file (which extracts content). The terms 'cover' and 'hidden payload' are domain jargon, but the transformation is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over verify_sealed_file or retrieve_secret_file, and no explicit preconditions beyond the input-shape note. The 'preserve the original' clause implies a non-mutating copy behavior, but the agent is never told the scenario that selects this tool versus its siblings.

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