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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description agrees with them. It adds useful behavioral context: the response may include raw mail, and the agent should prefer structured status, due dates, people, and source links, which informs how the output should be consumed.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The safety instruction is terse and adds distinct value, making this a well-structured, efficient definition.

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 read-only get-by-id tool, the description conveys the return concept and the fields to prioritize, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, without an output schema it leaves implicit the exact return shape, the source of the required id, and behavior when no commitment is found.

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?

The input schema exposes only 'id' (uuid, required) with no description, and the tool description never explains what this id refers to or where it can be obtained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the parameter but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the resource as a 'structured Promise commitment or waiting-on item', improving on the bare tool name. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_commitment_evidence or list_commitments, so full differentiation is left to inference.

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 sentence tells the agent when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_commitment_evidence or list_commitments. The 'Safety: Prefer structured status...' note is about interpreting the result rather than selecting the tool, so it does not satisfy the usage-guideline requirement.

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