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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that nobody, including redeal, can see the input until all parties commit, and that the deal opens for reveals after the last commitment. This goes beyond a simple 'commits input' statement and explains the sealed-mode behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential protocol detail without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 key workflow (sealing, multi-party commitment, reveal trigger) and is sufficiently complete for a commitment action. It does not cover edge cases like idempotency or error conditions, but the schema already documents the idempotency key. Given the absence of an output schema, this is adequate.

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 documents every parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. A score of 3 is the baseline when schema is complete and covers all parameters.

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 says "Commit your sealed input as a hash (sealed mode)", which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like reveal_input and compute_commitment_tool by focusing on the act of committing the prepared hash.

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 explains the commitment protocol context (all parties must commit before anyone can see inputs, and reveals open after last commit). It implies the tool is used after computing a commitment and before revealing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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