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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned data scope (full object vs status-only), which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior (unknown ID), authentication requirements, or whether the manifest hash is verified. Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then payload contents, then two routing alternatives. No filler, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately fills the gap by enumerating the returned fields and routing alternatives. Only missing piece is error/auth behavior for an unknown or unauthorized commitment ID.

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 the parameter's format is already documented in the schema (0x-prefixed or agent-id style). The description adds no new parameter syntax, but with full coverage and a single required param, the baseline is high.

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+resource ('Returns the full commitment object for a given commitment ID') and enumerates the fields returned (terms, state, manifest hash, evidence references). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_commitment_status and list_commitments.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when an agent needs the complete commitment record') and names two alternatives with their selection conditions (status-only polling → get_commitment_status, listing → list_commitments). Nothing left to inference.

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