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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false – so the safety profile and non-idempotency are already covered structurally. The description adds 'with the customer's key' and 'real' (vs test), implying live external side effects, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but does not say what 'sealed' means, whether a record is persisted, or what the experiment ('test_') actually affects.

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, appropriately brief and front-loaded with the action. But it is under-specified rather than tight; the brevity is not earning its place because essential parameter and usage context is simply absent.

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?

A live, non-idempotent, open-world call with 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema needs substantial description. Instead the agent gets one sentence about 'verdict and sealed block' with no parameter docs, no return shape, and no mention of side effects or billing/cost implications of a 'real' live call.

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% for all 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining action, amount, country, user_id, api_key. It mentions only the api_key implicitly ('customer's key') and gives nothing about the four decision-shaping parameters, nor which are required, nor accepted values.

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 says 'send one real decision through the live engine' and 'show the verdict and the sealed block' – a specific verb (send, show) and resource (decision, verdict, sealed block). However it does not explain WHAT a 'decision' is or what the engine does, and it does not distinguish from rich siblings like sebbi_decision_report or sebbi_spend_verify. An agent seeing 19 sebbi_* tools cannot map this to a domain concept.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With 19 sibling tools, several (sebbi_decision_report, sebbi_spend_request, sebbi_spend_verify) sound adjacent to 'decision', yet none are referenced for disambiguation.

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