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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state transition (REVEALING → done), the source of randomness (public League of Entropy beacon), the public verifiability of the drand round, and idempotency. This goes well beyond a minimal statement and gives the agent a solid mental model of side effects and safety.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose/mechanism, timing/state, and idempotency. No fluff, no repetition, and the most important action verb starts the description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (external beacon, cryptographic draw, certificate issuance, state machine), the description covers all key aspects: precondition (all reveals), process, state effect, and retry safety. While there is no output schema, the description mentions the certificate and public checkability, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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%—both deal_id and credential already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about the deal lifecycle (after last reveal) but does not add new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Finish a random.v1 deal' followed by the mechanism (fetch drand round, compute draw, issue certificate). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_certificate (which likely retrieves an existing certificate) and reveal_input (which submits reveals).

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?

Explicit usage timing is provided: 'Call this after the last reveal_input; the deal rests in REVEALING until you do.' It also notes idempotency ('safe to retry'), which directly informs when and how often the tool may be invoked. This is clear contextual guidance without needing to name alternatives.

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