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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses credit consumption, service-state mutation, and an explicit boundary that it does not sign/submit/execute. One note of tension: annotations declare idempotentHint=false while the description urges an idempotency key, which reads as 'not idempotent unless you supply a key' rather than a direct contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the cost/state caveat, then the negative scope. Every sentence carries weight, though the idempotency-key advice is wedged mid-sentence in the cost warning rather than standing out as an instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation, cost, and non-execution boundaries an agent needs. The remaining gap is the placement/role of the idempotency key inside the opaque nested input object.

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 single top-level parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('The complete signed PriorSeal authorization request'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a hint about an idempotency key, and it does not say where that key belongs given the flat one-object input shape.

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 specific verbs and a resource ('Verify and persist a principal-signed authorization'), which cleanly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like priorseal_get_authorization and from priorseal_prepare_authorization. The closing negation ('never signs, submits, or executes a transaction') further separates it from execution-oriented siblings, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent learns this is the step that validates and durably records an already-signed authorization, and that it costs credits and mutates state. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing or a stated precondition (e.g. that a prepare step must precede it).

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