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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral detail: the conditional attestExecution send, host-signer switch dependency, environment resolution order, and the exact failure code with the guarantee that nothing is sent. It still omits whether the operation mutates state, what apiKey authentication is required, and what a successful seal produces.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and each follow-up sentence carrying distinct conditional logic. Dense but no filler; only the parenthetical failure-mode sentence could be argued as secondary.

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?

No output schema and 0% parameter coverage, so the description should do more. It adequately covers the environment and attestation gating but leaves the apiKey parameter, the mutation/safety profile, and the success shape unexplained for a 5-parameter write operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effects of payerPrivateKey (triggers attestExecution) and environmentId (required on Mainnet, else env var fallback) and names evidenceId/decision implicitly, but leaves apiKey entirely undocumented and gives no meaning for the decision string's expected values.

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+resource: 'Seal an evidence id and a decision.' An agent knows the operation, but the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like veya_sealed_execute or veya_attest_execution, so the sibling differentiation required for a 5 is absent.

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?

Gives conditional context (when attestExecution is sent, the Mainnet environment requirement, and the SEAL_ENVIRONMENT_REQUIRED failure mode), which implies the prerequisites. However, it never says when to choose this over veya_sealed_execute or veya_attest_execution, so usage relative to alternatives remains inferred.

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