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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: encryption scheme, an auth requirement (product API key), and a fail-closed failure mode when capacity is unreachable. It stops short of stating what the call returns, whether it mutates state, idempotency, or rate limits, so it is helpful but incomplete for a 6-param execution tool.

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 short sentences with the core action and mechanism front-loaded, and no wasted words. It is tightly sized, though the terseness contributes to the documentation gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, a nested payload object, and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what sessionEntropyHex or eventType must contain, or what a successful result looks like.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters (5 required), so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Needs a product API key' loosely maps to apiKey, but agentId, environmentId, eventType, payload, and especially sessionEntropyHex receive no explanation of meaning, format, or constraints.

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 and resource ('protected execution') plus the mechanism ('AES-256-GCM') and the location ('this server's sealed node'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts with close siblings like veya_run_protected_execution or veya_seal_decision, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to any of the many execution-related siblings. The only selection hint is an implicit prerequisite ('Needs a product API key'), which is a precondition rather than usage guidance.

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