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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the single-use nature, the proof claims (specific deliverable, agent, time, immutability), and the cost per call ($0.05 USDC). It does not mention side effects such as whether the seal is stored or any network dependencies, but the provided details cover key operational facts. The absence of a return-format description is minor given the intended use as a receipt.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('A single-use cryptographic seal...') and appends the pricing as a parenthetical. Every element serves a function, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, cost, and the single-use constraint. It lacks details on how to construct the 'task' parameter or what the response format looks like, but these are not essential for a basic agent to invoke it correctly. The tool is simple enough that the description is largely adequate.

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?

The schema describes the only parameter 'task' as 'Task/query text for this SKU,' which is 100% coverage. The tool description mentions 'specific deliverable' and 'specific agent' but does not explain how these map to the 'task' parameter. The description adds negligible value beyond the schema's own documentation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'A single-use cryptographic seal proving a specific deliverable was produced by a specific agent at a specific time and has not been altered since.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trust.receipt-verify (which verifies seals) and security.audit-attestation (which likely audits attestations). The term 'single-use' adds a distinguishing qualifier.

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 description implies the tool is for creating a receipt that a counterparty can independently check, suggesting it is used when one needs to prove a deliverable's provenance and integrity to a counterparty. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the phrase 'the receipt a counterparty can independently check' gives clear usage context. A more explicit note about using trust.receipt-verify for verification would elevate the score.

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