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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses a conditional side effect (attestExecution), a network-specific prerequisite (Mainnet environment), and a concrete failure mode with no side effect (SEAL_ENVIRONMENT_REQUIRED, nothing sent). Remaining gaps: auth expectations for apiKey and whether sealing is idempotent/reversible.

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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, each carrying distinct operational information with little filler. Slightly telegraphic phrasing costs a little readability but not much space.

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 no annotations, yet the description covers the main control-flow branches and one error code. It still leaves the successful return value, apiKey usage, and the meaning of 'decision' values unspecified, which matters for a 5-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It gives meaning to evidenceId, decision, environmentId, and implicitly payerPrivateKey ('payer key'), but apiKey is never explained, and no formats or value constraints are added for any parameter.

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', naming both required inputs. It is distinguishable from siblings such as veya_sealed_execute, though the description never contrasts itself with them 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?

Gives conditional behavior (attestExecution fires only with a payer key or when the relayer switch is on; environmentId or VEYA_SEAL_DECISION_ENVIRONMENT_ID is needed on Mainnet), which implies when this will succeed versus fail. It does not say when an agent should choose this tool over e.g. veya_sealed_execute or veya_attest_execution.

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