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

The description adds real behavioral content — the hash construction, deadline format, and escrow linkage — which the annotations do not cover. But it asserts 'Idempotent per (committer, nonce)' while annotations set idempotentHint=false, so the agent receives conflicting signals about retry safety. It also does not say what happens when a deadline passes or whether a commit can be superseded.

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 critical timing constraint is front-loaded, and the remaining clauses are dense but purposeful, each mapping to a different parameter or behavior. The semicolon-chained style is terse to the point of being cryptic in places, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable, and the description covers the hashing and escrow aspects of a fairly specialized tool. It still leaves gaps around failure modes, whether a commit is revocable, and the identity/authorization implied by 'committer', which matter for a mutation tool.

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, and it largely does: commit_hash is defined by an explicit formula with output length, deadline is constrained to ISO-8601, context is tied to the escrow/job, and nonce is implied as the idempotency key. Only 'committer' is left unexplained, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Commit') on a specific resource ('a deliverable') and adds a timing condition ('BEFORE handover'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like commitment_status, list_commitments, or reveal, so it falls 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 phrase 'BEFORE handover' gives one sequencing rule, which implies usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the related tools (verify, commitment_status, seal_outcome_receipt) or what preconditions must hold before calling it.

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