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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that salt and digest remain hidden before reveal, but does not explain authentication needs, error behavior, or what 'current' includes beyond the hidden fields.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase, including the pre-reveal caveat, adds some distinguishing detail.

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 simple read-only lookup with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify the relationship to sibling commitment tools or the meaning of commitment_id, both of which an agent would need to select the tool confidently.

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?

There is one required parameter, commitment_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not define its expected format or meaning beyond the obvious name. The description therefore fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 phrase 'Current record for a commitment' identifies the resource and scope, but omits an explicit verb and does not distinguish this from siblings such as get_orc_commitment or list_commitments. The parenthetical clarifies the pre-reveal state, yet the core purpose remains only implied rather than stated as a concrete action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus get_orc_commitment, list_commitments, or reveal. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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