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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the transformation (disclose fields, hash the rest) but omits critical details such as what entity_id is used for, whether the tool reads an existing credential, what the output format is, or if there are side effects. This is insufficient for a privacy-sensitive tool.

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 seven words long and immediately front-loads the action. Every word is meaningful with zero redundancy, achieving maximum conciseness while still conveying the core function.

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 omits essential context: what entity_id references, how the underlying data is obtained, what the return value looks like, and how this relates to siblings like create_commitment. With no output schema and no annotations, the tool is not adequately described for an AI to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 coverage is 50%: 'disclose' has a description, but 'entity_id' does not. The tool description adds minimal meaning for 'disclose' (implied as the list of fields to reveal) but completely ignores 'entity_id', failing to compensate for the schema gap. The agent would not know what entity_id refers to.

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 uses a clear verb 'Disclose' and specifies the operation of hashing remaining fields, unambiguously conveying the tool's role in selective disclosure. It doesn't explicitly name the resource type (e.g., credential) but the action is sufficient to distinguish it from creation or verification siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_commitment or verify_merkle_proof. The description lacks any mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be more suitable for specific use cases.

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