delimit_seal_verify

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses side effects as 'read-only', details the backend call, and explains the optional dependency behavior (returns verification_unavailable if cryptography is absent). No contradictions.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear headings (purpose, when to use/not use, sibling contrast, side effects). Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, no annotations, has output schema), the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, side effects, and alternatives. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description is 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already explains 'receipt_path'. The description does not add additional semantics or usage details beyond the schema. Per guidelines, 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 clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the specific resource 'Delimit Seal receipt against the bundled Layer-0 constitution'. The sibling contrast section explicitly distinguishes it from delimit_evidence_verify and delimit_ledger.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming alternative tools (delimit_evidence_verify, delimit_ledger) and contrasting their purposes.

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