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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the privacy guarantee ('Nobody — including redeal — can see your input until all parties have committed') and the temporal behavior (reveals open immediately after last commitment). It does not mention failure modes or revert behavior, but the idempotency_key parameter is covered in 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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides meaningful context without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description explains the core workflow and privacy behavior well, and the schema covers parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a receipt or confirmation), which is a minor gap for a state-changing protocol step.

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%, with each parameter well documented (e.g., commitment format described in detail). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action 'Commit your sealed input as a hash (sealed mode)' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining the sealing behavior ('Nobody — including redeal — can see your input until all parties have committed') and the subsequent reveal timing.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is used: during the commitment phase before reveals. 'After the last commitment the deal opens for reveals immediately' implies the sequencing relative to other tools like compute_commitment_tool and reveal_input. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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