seal_incident_receipt

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond those hints: it is 'self-checking,' exports a verification result, and returns the specific data set (cert chain, tier, domain freeze state). It does not contradict annotations.

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, each earning its place: what the tool returns, that it changes nothing, and the sibling alternative. The purpose is front-loaded and there is zero fluff.

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 single-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: the input, the output contents, side effects (none), and the alternative for a different need. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema fully documents the 'intent' parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond indicating 'one intent,' which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: a 'read-only, self-checking export for one intent' that returns 'full cert chain, tier, domain freeze state, and a chain verification result.' It also names the sibling alternative (seal_get) and distinguishes itself as the auditor/counterparty document, making its role unmistakable.

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 description gives explicit guidance: use this for audit/counterparty documentation and use seal_get for a quick status. This clearly separates the tool from its siblings and provides a concrete when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule.

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