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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: verification fails on one bit of drift, a delivery_proof is returned for escrow release, and late reveals expire the commitment. These are important operational traits not conveyed by readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, or idempotentHint=false. It does not discuss permission or authentication requirements.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by verification behavior and the delivery_proof outcome.

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 non-readonly commitment operation, the description covers the key workflow, failure condition, and expiry behavior, and an output schema exists for return details. However, with all three parameters undocumented in the schema, the definition leaves parameter-level semantics largely unexplained.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for three required parameters. It conceptually maps commitment_id, salt, and content_digest through phrases like 'commitment' and 'digest + salt', but it gives no format, source, or validation details for any parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reveal the committed content's digest and salt after handover. It is clearly distinct from a generic reveal, and the commitment context separates it from most sibling tools. It does not explicitly contrast with verify or commitment_status, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear timing guidance: use after handover, and late reveals expire the commitment. That tells the agent the operational window and the consequence of missing it. It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use this one.

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