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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: 'The seed is returned to the caller and never stored' and 'verify -- ... No local state.' It also mentions attestation via Stamp, indicating side effects beyond the obvious. This goes beyond a simple functional statement, though it doesn't cover all behaviors (e.g., error handling, rate limits).

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 block organized as a list of operations, with each line adding value. The main purpose is front-loaded with 'Verifiable commit-reveal.' The structure is efficient, though slightly verbose, and every sentence earns its place. Could be tightened, but it's well-structured.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of operations and key inputs, but it lacks complete coverage. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'attested', 'anchor_beacon', 'description', or how parameters map to specific operations. An agent may struggle to know which parameters are relevant for a given operation. This is a gap given the tool's complexity.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for several parameters by context: 'draw_spec {operation, params}' for commit/draw, 'commitment_id' for reveal, and 'limit, since' for list. However, many parameters (attested, anchor_beacon, description, seed beyond implicit use, commitment_record, reveal_record) are not explicitly defined. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 tool's purpose as 'Verifiable commit-reveal' and then explicitly enumerates each operation (commit, reveal, draw, verify, list) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the operations by describing what each does, making it easy for an agent to understand the tool's scope and separate it from generic actions.

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 implies usage context by describing each operation's role (e.g., 'list -- read-only view of the local commitment log'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools (explore, random, test) nor give exclusions. The guidance is encoded in the operation descriptions, which is adequate but not explicitly comparative.

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