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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether this is a write/mutation, what state or artifacts it creates, whether it is idempotent or reversible, or any rate/auth limits beyond the key requirement already stated in the schema's apiKey description.

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 that are front-loaded, so it is not bloated, but the second sentence restates a schema constraint and the cryptic '(Build)' tag spends words without adding meaning.

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 8-parameter write-style tool with 25% schema coverage, a nested payload object, and no annotations or output schema needs substantially more description to be safely invoked. The definition leaves the agent guessing about required semantics and side effects.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it explains nothing about environmentId, agentId, eventType, payload, seal, disclose, or sessionToken. The sole hint (API key needed) duplicates the apiKey field description in the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Run protected execution') but 'protected execution' is undefined jargon and the parenthetical '(Build)' is opaque. It does not distinguish this from siblings like veya_sealed_execute or veya_run_consensus, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('Product API key required'), not a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when this should be chosen over veya_sealed_execute, veya_prove, or veya_run_consensus, despite heavy sibling overlap in the execution family.

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