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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that sealing publishes a public scorecard page with a reference code (SC-XXXX-XXXX) intended for auditors/insurers, that this is the default, and how to opt out. It also states the retention behavior ('Only a fingerprint of the record is kept') – exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs before sending a governance record.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope, then outputs, then the sealing side effect and its opt-out. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does it: overall score, per-framework scores, and prioritized fixes. Data retention and the public-page side effect are covered. Minor gap: it doesn't mention failure behavior when the record is malformed or the cost/latency of a 755-check sealed run.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining the interaction the schema can't – that agent-output gates only fire when input_payload/output_payload are supplied – and by restating the seal=false escape hatch in behavioral terms. It doesn't clarify the record shape or the frameworks key format beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object: 'Runs all 755 compliance checks ... on one governance record in a single call', and scopes the alternative ('or the frameworks named'). It implies the whole-suite scope that separates it from sebbi_run_check and sebbi_run_framework, though it never names them.

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?

'By default seals ... send seal=false to just look' gives one concrete usage branch and a safe preview path. However, it never says when to prefer this over sebbi_run_check (single check) or sebbi_run_framework (one framework), which are the nearest siblings and the likeliest mis-selection.

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