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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the side effect ('register its commitment'), the dual verification modes (offline L1 and registry L2), the attestation scope ('integrity and time, not correctness'), and the output constraints ('No floats in output; stores only digests'). This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds verification, attestation, and spec details without wasted words. It could be slightly tighter, but each sentence carries meaningful information.

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?

The description is strong on behavior and points to an external spec, and an output schema exists, which helps. However, with no annotations and zero parameter guidance, an agent cannot fully understand the required semantic context for several parameters. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description does not compensate. Five parameters exist, but the description only loosely references 'output' and says nothing about profile, subject, bindings, or excludes. An agent cannot determine their meaning or formatting from the text.

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 action: 'Seal an agent output as an Outcome Receipt (ORC v0.1) and register its commitment.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and core function. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like commit or get_orc_commitment, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling alternatives are mentioned. The description explains what the tool does but not under what circumstances an agent should choose this over commit, verify, or reveal. Context is implied at best.

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