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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the enumeration of possible states (queued, sent to Bitcoin, confirmed) and the return of a proof link, which is useful output context, but it omits auth needs, latency/confirmation behavior, and why a read-looking status tool is flagged as non-read-only.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its two code formats, then the returned states. It is efficient with no wasted clauses, though the em-dash stack makes it slightly dense to parse.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the code formats and the possible result states plus the proof link, which is close to what an agent needs. The main gap is the absence of any usage/routing guidance relative to its many siblings.

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 schema says only "string" and the description must compensate. It does add value by naming the two accepted formats (NT-XXXX-XXXX or HK-XXXX-XXXX), but it does not explain what the code identifies or which format applies in which case, leaving the single parameter only partially specified.

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 states what the tool returns — the status of a notary receipt (NT-XXXX-XXXX) or Human Keys code (HK-XXXX-XXXX), with the specific states queued, sent to Bitcoin, confirmed in a block, plus a link to the Forever Proof. The verb is implicit ("where ... stands" rather than "get status"), and it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling sebbi_forever_proof, which may also surface the proof link.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sebbi_check_human_proof or sebbi_forever_proof. The only selection cue is the accepted code formats, which is not enough to route the agent confidently.

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