seal_action_demo

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

Annotations only supply the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: a per-IP rate limit, the fact that the action label and metadata become publicly published, the exact receipt composition (Ed25519 signature, Merkle inclusion proof, operator-signed C2SP checkpoint), and that verification is offline and permanent.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical rate-limit and receipt-detail clauses make it packed, but each clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 compensates by describing the return value (portable verifiable receipt) and its verification path. Rate limits, payment alternative, and the public-publishing side effect are all covered, leaving nothing material missing for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents hash format, length caps, and the 'published — never put secrets here' warning on its own. The description reinforces the hash-only contract and public-visibility consequence but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Seal the HASHES of an AI action into GBLIN's public append-only RFC 6962 transparency log." It also names the closely-related sibling (how_to_seal_paid), so an agent can separate it from the payment-instruction tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context (FREE demo, 5/day/IP) and routes to the alternative with a condition: unlimited seals go through x402 "— see how_to_seal_paid." There is no explicit when-not-to-use versus prepare_action or the verification siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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