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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful trait that verification is 'independent' — i.e. a local cryptographic check rather than a trusted lookup — and that the digest comparison is optional; only minor gaps remain (e.g. what a mismatch implies).

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional behaviour placed after the semicolon. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the optional parameter's role. Missing only identifier/format details, which is a small gap given the output schema removes any need to explain return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does so: it explains content_digest as the digest of the received content and marks it optional, but says nothing about commitment_id syntax or the expected digest format (hex/base64/algorithm). That is a meaningful but incomplete compensation for the undocumented schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair ('verify a revealed commitment') and clarifies that digest comparison is an optional add-on. The word 'revealed' implicitly ties it to the reveal sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly for contrast (e.g. commitment_status or get_orc_commitment).

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 phrase 'revealed commitment' implies a precondition (you must have revealed it first) and 'optionally check it against the digest of content you received' indicates when to supply the second parameter. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over commitment_status, get_orc_commitment, or list_commitments, so routing is left to inference.

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