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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the free-tier lock behavior (first 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type), what is permanently withheld (contact values, decision-maker names), and the entitlement/locked self-reporting in every response. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 core scoping is front-loaded, but the first sentence is an overlong run-on enumerating a dozen tape fields, and the closing marketing CTA about the 7-day free trial does not help an agent invoke the tool. Structure is workable but 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does well: it describes the access model, withholding rules, and entitlement/locked fields. It stops short of describing pagination or how multiple committed entities are ordered, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain include_holdings well (holds that are performance-report lines, never approvals) and implies date/amount behavior for limit, but leaves the limit parameter's role and the accepted dfx_id prefixes largely to the schema. Partial compensation, so a baseline-adjacent 3.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns 'the commitment tapes' for any referenced id, and names the two tapes it unifies (allocator disclosure tape and real estate fund LP tape). The purpose is clear, but it never names or contrasts against obvious siblings such as search_allocator_commitments or search_vc_lp_commitments, so an agent cannot easily tell which commitment tool to pick.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule ('value-only holdings ... only with include_holdings') and clarifies the default (dated commitments with an amount). However there is no guidance on when to use this versus the many search_* commitment siblings, and no prerequisites for which ids qualify beyond the schema.

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