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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial operational context: quantities are never summed, documents are counted once per challenge, history is append-only, figures are dated observations within a Challenge List epoch, and status remains pre_operational until stated conditions are met. It also notes the register is served in full on both tiers. These details go well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 front-loads the core purpose and is information-dense without obvious padding for a complex 10-parameter tool. However, it is a single long paragraph with many clauses and em-dashes, which reduces readability and structure. It could benefit from clearer separation of returns, routing and parameter guidance.

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 output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly: challenge table, actor table, records with evidence, Challenge List Reference, and definitions. It also covers caveats about counting, status semantics, and tier availability. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning, enum values and defaults in detail. The description recaps the parameters (view, filters, record_id, include_history) but adds little semantic value beyond what is already structured, aside from reinforcing that record_id overrides view and that history returns an append-only series. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Retrieve) and a precise resource (the Compute Commitment Register), and immediately defines the register as verified commitments of computing capacity by named actors. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming get_event, query_scp and get_metrics for adjacent use cases. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: 'for an attributed event use get_event; for sovereign capability use query_scp; for coordination metrics use get_metrics.' It also states the default view and how filters select subsets, giving clear when-to-use guidance. The condition for using each alternative is stated directly.

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