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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing and filter capability, but fails to mention pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions, or any side effects. While an output schema exists, the description itself lacks transparency about the tool's operational behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description still feels incomplete. It does not explain the default behavior when no state is provided (e.g., lists all commitments), nor does it mention pagination or result limits. For a listing tool, this context is essential for proper usage.

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?

The schema defines 'state' as a nullable string with no enum constraints, so the description adds significant value by listing the allowed values (PENDING, REVEALED, EXPIRED). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter's semantics clear.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'commitments', and specifies the optional filter with the exact allowed enum values (PENDING, REVEALED, EXPIRED). This sets it apart from sibling tools like 'commit' (create) and 'commitment_status' (single status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., commitment_status for a single commitment or commit for creating). It also omits context such as prerequisites or default behavior when no filter is applied.

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