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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds only the optional state filter and does not disclose ordering, pagination, or default behavior beyond the word 'optionally.'

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?

It is one short, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and filter values with no redundant wording.

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 annotations and an output schema covering safety and return shape, the main remaining gaps are disambiguation from sibling tools and explicit default behavior when state is omitted. It is adequate for a simple list operation but not fully complete.

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 schema itself lacks an enum for state. The description compensates by naming the allowed values PENDING|REVEALED|EXPIRED and noting that state is optional, though it does not explicitly say that null or omission means all states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List commitments.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_orc_commitment, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as commitment_status.

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?

It states that state filtering is optional, which implies usage for both filtered and unfiltered listing. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it.

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