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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that action/agent_id/tool/meta strings are published in the log, that only identifiers not secrets should be sent, that provenance is self-reported, and that unrecognized fields are ignored. It also reveals the daily on-chain anchor cadence. This gives the agent a rich safety and trust model.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core action first, then demo constraints, then the alternative paid endpoint, then the trust caveat, then the privacy warning, then the field-ignoring rule. The density is high but there is zero fluff, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 sealing tool with 7 parameters, output schema, and security/privacy implications, the description covers the key operational constraints, return contents, rate limits, mode availability, and data-publication behavior. The existence of an output schema means detailed return fields need not be repeated, and nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by marking action/agent_id/tool/meta as PUBLISHED and warning that unlisted fields are ignored and NOT recorded. This is privacy-relevant context beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource: append hashes of an AI action to GBLIN's RFC 6962 transparency log and return a portable receipt. It names the concrete output artifacts (Ed25519 signature, inclusion proof, C2SP checkpoint, on-chain anchor), fully distinguishing it from siblings like receipts.get and receipts.verify.

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 clearly scopes the MCP mode ('mode=demo', 5 seals/day/IP) and points to the paid x402 HTTP endpoint for unlimited seals. It also warns about the self-reported provenance limitation. It does not explicitly contrast with receipts.get/receipts.verify, but the sealing vs. retrieving/verifying distinction is implied by the names and first sentence.

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