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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting 'Safety: Return source summaries and citations permitted by the platform API', which hints at platform restrictions and the nature of the output (citations). However, it does not detail what happens if the evidence is unavailable or any rate limits.

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 sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a safety note in the second. It is front-loaded and concise. The safety note is relevant and earns its place by alerting the agent to platform constraints.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what to expect (source summaries and citations) and conveys the safety constraints. It could mention whether the output includes any caveats, but the lack of an output schema means the description carries more weight, and it does a reasonable job.

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%, but the tool has only one parameter (id, a UUID), and the description does not elaborate on the id beyond what the schema shows. The description's main focus is on the tool's purpose, not the parameter. Since the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, a baseline 3 is appropriate – the description does not add significant meaning, but the schema is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a resource ('commitment evidence'), and clarifies that it explains why Promise believes a follow-up or memory exists. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the phrase 'why Promise believes' is distinctive enough to set it apart from generic retrieval tools like get_commitment or search_memory.

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 implies usage: call it when you need to understand the reasoning behind a follow-up or memory. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'why' suggests it complements but does not replace get_commitment or search_memory. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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