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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: sourcing from the public League of Entropy beacon, the state transition from REVEALING to finalized, and idempotency. This goes beyond a simple 'finishes the deal' by explaining underlying mechanics and side effects.

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?

Three focused sentences, each contributing unique value: purpose/process, usage timing, and idempotency. Front-loaded with the primary action, no redundancy or fluff.

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 two-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to invoke it, the state change, and retry safety. The workflow relationship with reveal_input is clear, making the tool's role in the overall process complete.

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 both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add significant parameter-specific semantics, only implicit context (e.g., 'after the last reveal_input' relates to deal_id). Baseline 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 role: 'Finish a random.v1 deal' and details the exact process (fetching drand round, computing draw, issuing certificate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reveal_input and get_certificate by explicitly tying its execution to post-reveal finalization.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after the last reveal_input' and explains the deal remains in REVEALING until called. The idempotency note ('safe to retry') also gives practical usage direction. The context of prerequisites and state transition is clear.

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