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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds nothing new. The description's only extra behavioral signal is 'live', implying fresh/non-cached terms, which is genuine but thin context against an otherwise fully annotated 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource and the action are front-loaded. Every clause carries information (what it reads, its safety profile, when to call it).

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: it names the resource and the data fields returned, plus the workflow trigger. Minor gap is that the shape/format of 'terms' is never characterized beyond three field names.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated return contents are the only parameter-adjacent detail worth having.

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 (Read) and resource (live SML Commit terms) and enumerates the payload (price, outcomes, rules). It is distinguishable from neighbors like commit_discover_effects and x402_contract, though 'SML Commit terms' remains somewhat jargon-dependent.

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?

Gives a concrete timing condition: 'Use before quoting a commit check to a caller.' That tells the agent when this read belongs in a workflow, but it names no alternative tool for adjacent needs and offers no explicit exclusions.

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