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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the commitment is publicly visible the instant it is written, signing is ed25519 over a 'commit|' + canonical-JSON preimage, and invalid horizon_h fails after signature check but before the ledger write. What it doesn't cover is whether a failed/retried commit is safely distinguishable or what a success returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the signing contract, then the irreversibility consequence. The closing 'that is the point' is rhetorical but still carries the durability signal; nothing else is padded.

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 an 8-parameter, 7-required, irreversible write with no output schema, the definition is adequate: it covers signing, timing rules via schema, and the public-visibility consequence. It never says what a successful commit returns (call id or hash) or how to confirm the write landed, which matters given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries its own constraint text (pair enum, size_pct range, ts_commit window, sig format). The description only restates the signing recipe and points to get_docs; it adds little semantic detail the schema does not already provide, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Commit a sealed prediction to the public ledger') plus the key property that the committed hash becomes public immediately. It is clearly distinguishable from verify_call and score_calls by verb, though it never names those siblings or routes to them.

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?

Usage is implied by the lifecycle (commit → verify → score), and the tool defers field details to get_docs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or mention of what to call before (register_agent) or after (verify_call) committing.

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