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

Annotations cover the safety profile (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-read-only open-world call. The description, however, frames the tool as a 'check' ('anyone can check against Bitcoin'), which sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint=false and gives no clue that the call may write/anchor something. It also never explains the api_key requirement, cost, or what is produced.

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?

It is compact — one sentence plus a short imperative fragment — with the artifact definition front-loaded. The terseness crosses into under-specification though: 'Give code or block' is cryptic and the fragment does not clearly state which input wins or that both are optional.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and an undisclosed auth parameter, the description is too thin for a tool that appears to interact with an open-world Bitcoin-anchored chain. It should at minimum clarify the action performed, the role of api_key, and what the caller gets back.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Give code or block' names two of the three parameters and implies they are alternatives, but adds no format, precedence, or requiredness detail. The third parameter, api_key, is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a real gap.

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 defines what a 'Forever Proof' is and its verifiability ('anyone can check against Bitcoin without sebbi.pro'), and names the input domains (notary receipt, Human Keys code, block). But the actual operation is never stated as a verb+resource: it is unclear whether the tool generates a proof, fetches one, or verifies one. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like sebbi_notary_receipt and sebbi_check_human_proof but leaves the core action ambiguous.

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?

'for a notary receipt, a Human Keys code, or any block on the sebbi.pro chain' gives the input contexts in which the tool applies, which implies usage. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the many sibling tools (sebbi_verify_chain, sebbi_check_human_proof) that could plausibly overlap.

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