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

With no annotations to rely on, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the meaning of 'issued' and 'repudiated', that withdrawal does not erase the original, and that both are timestamped. It also explicitly states 'Authentication: none' and 'This tool works with no credentials', which is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, each adding relevant information: purpose, state values, persistence behavior, usage timing, and auth requirements. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and contains 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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: how to invoke (ref), what to expect (state and meaning), and special behaviors (withdrawal persistence, no auth). It is complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'ref', and its description already explains that it is the only way to read the commitment. The tool description reinforces this but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read a commitment you were given by commit_order'. It specifies the resource (commitment) and differentiates from its sibling commit_order by focusing on reading rather than creating. The state semantics are also explained, making it unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Check this before acting on a commitment made some time ago.' This conveys when the tool should be used. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a unique read-only tool.

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