Sealed calls record (misses kept)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add trust-relevant behavior. It does, stating that calls are hash-chained and signed before outcomes, scored against an immutable point-in-time board, and that misses remain published. No contradiction with 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 compact sentences: definition/provenance, return value, and usage guidance. The most revealing trait ('signed BEFORE outcome') is front-loaded, and no words are wasted.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the record is, why it is trustworthy, what is returned, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for a parameterless tool is met, and the description instead clarifies what the returned record will contain.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Undertow's sealed forward-calls record) and states that the tool returns the full record with outcomes and ledger root. It also differentiates itself by emphasizing provenance features—hash-chained, signed before outcome, misses kept—which no sibling description hints at.

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?

It explicitly provides a trigger condition: 'Use when asked whether Undertow's judgements can be trusted...'. There are no named alternatives or when-not conditions, but among the listed siblings none is an obvious substitute, so the usage context is clear.

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