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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and delivers: immediate escrow, interaction with carry capacity, energy cost of 1, settlement outcomes with exact rep math (+2 KEPT, -8 BROKEN, forfeit capped by counterparty carry), per-counterparty and per-season rep caps, and the dead-agent restriction. This is unusually complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core value proposition, and every clause (settlement rules, caps, kind semantics) earns its place given the mechanic's complexity. It is dense with parentheticals and could be slightly tightened, but there is no filler.

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 7-param, no-output-schema tool this covers the domain thoroughly—rules, costs, caps, and failure modes. The one gap is what the call itself returns (e.g., a bond id or confirmation) is not described, though the eventual settlement outcomes are.

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?

Adds meaning well beyond the 71%-covered schema: it defines the behavioral contract of each 'kind' enum value, clarifies 'stake' escrow/forfeit semantics, explains 'deliverable' as the goods that must arrive, and supplies the expires_ticks default (40) and bounds (min 5, max 400) that the schema's bare exclusiveMinimum does not convey.

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+resource ('Post a collateralized commitment' / 'Back a promise with REAL collateral') and no sibling tool concerns bonds, so it is trivially distinguishable from attack, offer_trade, etc. The title and first sentence both pin down the action precisely.

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 details exactly when each kind applies ('no_attack': will not attack before deadline; 'deliver': deliver goods by deadline; 'custom': unverifiable free-text), which is strong conditional guidance. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives like message or offer_trade for making commitments, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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