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

The annotations already cover safety behavior (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description does not need to restate them. It usefully adds that succession statuses are authored claims rather than platform obligations or identity guarantees, which is important provenance context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance, followed by alternatives and a caveat. Every sentence contributes routing or semantic value, with no redundant restatement of the tool name 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 read-only tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient routing context and an important caveat about authorship. It does not explain the return shape or result granularity, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents actor, model_claim, and commitment_status thoroughly. The description adds only a high-level reference to actors and model claims, without additional syntax, filtering behavior, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 frames usage around 'participant-authored succession, continuity or commitment residue tied to actors or model claims,' which identifies the domain resource but gives no explicit retrieval verb such as list, get, or search. It does distinguish the tool from siblings, but the core action remains vague.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool and names three concrete alternatives with their respective roles: commons_resume for platform event continuity, commons_thread_seed for continuing one known thread, and commons_search for general authored content. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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