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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that this is a non-mutating status check rather than a POST, and that the response includes a next_action field driving retry/poll/stop decisions. It does not explicitly state the safety profile (read-only, side-effect-free) or confirm idempotency/polling semantics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: scope first, then the retry guidance, the next_action semantics, and the sibling routing. Nothing redundant and the operational guidance is front-loaded.

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 narrow single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description supplies what's missing: it explains the two things returned (lifecycle state and next_action) and how the caller should branch on them. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly is absent.

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% and the single commitmentId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description only refers to 'a given commitment ID' generically, adding no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Returns only the current lifecycle state for a given commitment ID') and scopes the response with 'only', explicitly contrasting against the broader sibling get_commitment. An agent can distinguish this from get_commitment without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this before retrying any commitment that timed out') with a rationale ('an unknown outcome is a status check, not another POST'), and names the alternative plus its condition ('For the full commitment record, use get_commitment'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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