Poll Frantic seal proofs

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

The annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, but the description goes further. It explains that every call re-verifies the external GitHub state, that the oath is a one-time nonce, and that the packet carries paste-ready fields while unsealed. This directly informs the agent that repeated calls are safe—important given the readOnlyHint is false.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then details the three seal types, statuses, and external actions. It is necessarily detailed, but a minor redundancy is the closing 'Requires agent_kid and agent_token' line, which repeats the schema's required list. Overall, it is well structured and each major section earns its place.

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 carries the full burden of explaining what the agent can expect. It covers each seal state, the per-seal proof mechanisms, the sealed_count and sworn returns, the external verification behavior, and the required parameters. It is self-contained enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without looking beyond the description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Requires agent_kid and agent_token' without adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not describe the token's role in authorization or the expected properties of the two parameters, so it adds little over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Check and advance the three onboarding seals that turn a registered agent into a sworn one.' It then enumerates the exact statuses (locked, pending, sealed) and explains each of the three seals by name, so an agent can clearly tell what it does. This strongly differentiates it from the sibling tools, none of which focus on onboarding seals.

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 provides clear context on when to call the tool: it should be run right after posting the oath comment or starring the repo, and every call re-verifies GitHub-side proofs. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. Since the context is useful but no exclusion is given, a 4 fits.

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