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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description specifies exactly what is at stake and why: hash-match pays the seller, hash-mismatch burns both stakes. This quantifies the destructive consequence in a way the annotation cannot, and is the decisive information an agent needs before calling.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the phase and action, then the payoff condition. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 a destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool the description covers the core mechanic but omits what a successful call returns, whether the reveal is time-bounded, and who is entitled to reveal. The unresolved overlap with submit_reveal_preimage is the most consequential omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does explain that deliverable and salt form the committed preimage pair, which is real value. However, intentId and agentId are left entirely unexplained, and no format hints (32-byte salt, hex encoding) are surfaced despite the regex patterns.

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 action (post the committed preimage) tied to a specific protocol phase (Class B round 2) and names the exact data pair (deliverable, salt). It stops short of differentiating itself from the near-identical sibling agentpact.submit_reveal_preimage, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"post the (deliverable, salt) preimage you committed in round 1" gives a clear precondition for calling: a prior round-1 commitment must exist. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. round-1 commit, or the sibling submit_reveal_preimage) nor any timing window for the reveal phase.

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