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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the result fields (digest, issuer, profile, attestation, registered_at) and the NotFound outcome, which tells the agent how to handle a miss.

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 with no filler, and the core question is front-loaded before the return details. The phrasing "Registry lookup:" is slightly jargon-heavy but still efficient.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description need not explain return structure, yet it still summarizes the result fields and NotFound case. The remaining gap is the meaning and expected format of the sole required parameter, plus any note on notary context or access requirements.

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 0% and the single parameter "commitment" carries no description or format in the schema. The description does not compensate: it never explains what form the commitment takes, how it is derived, or whether it is an ID versus a hash, leaving the required argument underspecified.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Registry lookup") and frames the exact question answered: whether an ORC commitment is sealed by this notary. It also names the returned fields and the NotFound outcome, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_commitments or commitment_status, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing question ("is this ORC commitment sealed by this notary?"), so an agent can infer this is a point lookup for a single commitment. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools such as commitment_status, verify, or list_commitments.

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