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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results come back as binary MCP resources and the connector rejects anything over a 140,000-character limit, which materially affects whether a call will succeed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return/size behavior, then the input constraint. Minimal waste, though the input-source sentence partially overlaps with the schema's own note about Claude attachments and local paths.

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 and a nested object parameter, the description does the important work of explaining the return shape (binary MCP resources) and the size ceiling that can cause failure. It omits error behavior for a wrong seed or corrupt sealed file, but the essentials for calling correctly are present.

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 the nested sealed_file object, its oneOf download_url/content_base64 constraint, and the private_seed warning are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the seed and input-source requirement, so the 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 resource ('Recover the exact hidden file from an Omniseal sealed file using its private seed'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like seal_files, verify_sealed_file, or remove_hidden_file, but the action is distinct enough to route on.

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?

Usage is implied by the requirement of a private seed and the note that inputs must be actual file bytes or reachable URLs, which implicitly excludes local paths and attachment IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance and no stated prerequisites beyond the seed.

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