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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature and non-idempotency are known. The description adds 'Writes one record to the chain,' which concretely specifies the side effect, and names the verdict values. It does not clarify the implications of the non-idempotent flag (e.g. repeated calls create multiple sealed records) or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the outcome and side effect. Efficient with no filler, though the trailing 'so they see it working end to end' is the least information-dense part.

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 usefully enumerates the return shape (verdict, reasons, sealed block number), which compensates well there. But for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage it leaves the inputs entirely undocumented and gives no usage routing, so it is only partially complete.

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 documents none of the five parameters. It only alludes to api_key ('with their API key'), leaving action, amount, country and user_id completely unexplained, so an agent must guess their meaning and format from names alone.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Sends one decision through the live engine') and names the concrete output (verdict with ALLOW/CHALLENGE/BLOCK, reasons, sealed block number). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like sebbi_decision_report or sebbi_run_check, which an agent might reasonably confuse with a live decision tool.

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?

The phrase 'so they see it working end to end' implies an onboarding/first-run use case, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sebbi_decision_report or any other decision-related sibling, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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