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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: default dated commitments, the include_holdings toggle for value-only holdings, and the important caveat that commitments are the plan's number and repeat across reports. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries useful information. It is somewhat long with nested parentheticals, but the detail is necessary for domain-specific semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the key returned fields and clarifies the distinction between dated commitments and holdings, which is enough for most calls. The only notable gap is the undocumented limit parameter and lack of explicit pagination or result-shape details.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for dfx_id ('any id they reference') and include_holdings ('value-only holdings... only with include_holdings'), but it does not explain the limit parameter beyond what the schema already provides through constraints.

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 returns commitment tapes for an allocator or manager/fund, with specific fields and scope. It is more specific than a simple restatement, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_allocator_commitments, so it stops short of a 5.

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 what the tool returns and how parameters behave, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_allocator_commitments. There are no stated exclusions or conditions for using this versus a sibling tool.

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