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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful guarantee that the returned record includes tamper evidence ('proof it has not changed'), but says nothing about the required api_key authentication or any rate/scope limits, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the report's contents with no filler. It is efficient, though the flowery 'machine-proof / key sealed' phrasing costs a little clarity for the same length.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does sketch what comes back, which is a plus. But it omits how 'block' identifies the decision and omits the auth requirement, so an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke the tool confidently.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. 'The customer's key sealed' faintly hints that api_key is the customer's key, but the required 'block' integer is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the inputs opaque.

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?

The description identifies the resource (a report for a single sealed decision) and enumerates its contents, but the verb is implied by the noun 'report' rather than stated, and the jargon ('machine-proof', 'key sealed') obscures whether this retrieves, generates, or verifies. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as sebbi_notary_receipt or sebbi_verify_chain.

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 statement of when to call this versus the many related siblings (sebbi_notary_receipt, sebbi_verify_chain, sebbi_test_decision, sebbi_forever_proof). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no trigger condition — the agent must infer usage entirely.

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