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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that input validation occurs ('must hash to your earlier commitment'), that the action triggers automatic computation and certificate issuance if last party, and that the certificate is fetched separately. However, it omits side effects (e.g., does reveal lock the input?), error behavior (hash mismatch?), and whether the tool is read-only or mutating. The idempotency_key parameter is not referenced in the description.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the action, add a constraint, and provide follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place—no wasted words. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 covers the basic flow (commit → reveal → certificate) and references a sibling tool for the next step. However, it does not describe the return value of the tool itself, error conditions, or what happens if the party is not the last to reveal. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on the response would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides (the algorithm-specific input formats are documented in the schema's input property description). The description only adds general behavioral context, not per-parameter semantics.

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 action: 'Reveal your committed input.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like commit_input (which commits) and get_certificate (which fetches the resulting certificate) by describing the trigger: 'When the last party reveals, the deal computes and the fairness certificate is issued automatically.' The verb 'Reveal' plus resource 'committed input' is specific and differentiated.

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 context for when to use the tool: after commitment (input must hash to earlier commitment) and before fetching the certificate. It explicitly points to a sibling tool ('fetch it with get_certificate') for the follow-up action. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or list alternatives; the flow is implied rather than enumerated.

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