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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is known; the description adds real value on top by stating the downstream effect (verification checks will report the seal as revoked) and the organizational API key requirement. It does not say whether revocation is reversible or what happens to seals already consumed, which keeps it from 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence and the prerequisite. Nothing is redundant, though it is close to the minimum size an agent would want for a destructive operation.

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?

Only two required params, no output schema, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly complete: it names the auth requirement and the observable effect. A note on reversibility or follow-up (seal_verify to confirm) would close the remaining gap.

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% and both parameters (seal_id with the seal_... prefix, reason) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about what counts as a valid seal_id or whether the reason is audited.

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 ("Withdraw one of your seals") plus the resulting state ("Checks then show it as revoked"), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling reads like seal_verify or seal_list. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The parenthetical "e.g. sealed by mistake" hints at the situation that warrants revocation and the auth prerequisite is stated, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to seal_verify/seal_list as the alternative for inspecting a seal before revoking it. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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