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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is partly carried structurally. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context the annotations cannot express: a human principal must still sign, and the tool never accepts, signs, submits, or executes anything — a clear statement of the tool's safety boundary.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The positive capability statement is front-loaded and the negative safety boundary follows immediately, so an agent can read the essential contract in one pass.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers both capability and the critical safety boundary. The remaining gap is routing clarity against the closely named sibling priorseal_prepare_authorization, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

There is a single 'input' parameter with a nested object and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantics about what the preparation request must contain, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (prepare) and a composite resource (bounded authorization, deployment capabilities, handoff plan), so the agent knows this is a preparation step rather than execution. It does not, however, directly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling priorseal_prepare_authorization or explain how the two overlap.

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 negation 'never accepts, signs, submits, or executes' steers the agent away from priorseal_accept_authorization and toward this pre-signing step, but there is no positive statement of when to call this versus priorseal_prepare_authorization or priorseal_get_capabilities, and no prerequisites given.

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