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

Consistent with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false, and it adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call 'reveals no entry contents' (privacy guarantee) and is 'Free' (no credit spend, meaningful given guard_balance/credit siblings). It does not cover failure modes, e.g. what happens if the entry is not yet sealed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned proof components, then the two constraints (no content disclosure, free). No filler.

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 listing the four proof components, plus privacy and cost. Only gaps are error/not-yet-sealed behavior and whether the proof is independently verifiable offline.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying the entry_hash is a receipt hash identifying a sealed entry, reinforcing the schema's link to ledger_record_action. No format or length guidance is offered.

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+resource ('Prove an entry ... is sealed in a quantum block') and enumerates the proof payload: block, post-quantum signatures, on-chain settlement and Merkle inclusion proof. The 'by its receipt hash' scope distinguishes it implicitly from block-level siblings like qledger_block and chain-level ones like qledger_verify_chain.

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 only implied: the goal of proving entry-sealing suggests you call it after recording an entry, but the description never states prerequisites, when to prefer it over ledger_inclusion_proof or qledger_verify_chain, or when it is not applicable. The tie to ledger_record_action appears only in the schema, not the description.

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