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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-read, externally-reaching, non-idempotent call. The description adds valuable context the annotations don't: the seal is written to Base until the Privi mainnet, an organization API key is required, and the call is effectively an attestation-producing submission. It stops short of saying repeated calls create new seals or listing failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads what is exported and for whom, then tucks the sealing detail and auth requirement in trailing clauses. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: contents of the export, destination of the seal, chain caveat, audience and auth. It omits what the agent should do to verify the resulting seal (e.g., gov_pqc_verify_export) and any precondition such as an existing inventory, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds an operational requirement outside the schema: an organization API key must be supplied at the transport/auth level, which the empty input schema cannot express.

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: export the full CBOM plus migration plan as a single JSON document, sealed with SHA-256 on chain. This is clearly distinguished from plain read tools like gov_pqc_inventory by the sealing behavior, but the description never mentions the closely-named siblings gov_pqc_verify_export or gov_ai_inventory_export, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Names the intended audiences (OMB, CIO, auditors), which implies the compliance/attestation use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-call gov_pqc_verify_export or the raw inventory/plan tools. No prerequisites or exclusions beyond the API key requirement.

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