seal_fetch

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

Annotations are absent so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state permissions, whether the record is public, what happens on a missing/invalid hash, or the return shape. 'Sealed' implies immutability but that is reader inference, not disclosure.

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?

Single tight sentence, front-loaded with a bracketed category tag '[CHECK · door]' and the core verb. No wasted text, though the tag itself carries little meaning for an agent.

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?

A single-param fetch tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description should explain what a 'sealed verification record' contains and what a miss returns; it does neither.

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 0% and only the parameter name 'hash' is available. The description adds 'content hash' which mildly clarifies the parameter's nature, but doesn't mention format, algorithm, or encoding that an agent would need to construct a valid value.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Fetch a sealed verification record'. The parenthetical '(the receipt)' usefully disambiguates from generic 'record'. However it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like verify or attest_record, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. siblings such as verify, attest_record, or resolve. With ~90 sibling tools, the absence of any routing hint leaves selection ambiguous.

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