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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that open commitments already ride in the snapshot, implying the tool can return closed ones. It doesn't contradict annotations and gives useful scoping context.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds context about the snapshot, and the third gives usage guidance. No redundant words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only listing tool with two optional parameters, the description covers scope and usage well. It mentions returning ids and filtering by status, but it doesn't describe pagination or the exact return structure (no output schema exists). Still, the essential information for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 50% (status has a description, limit does not). The tool description mentions status usage indirectly ('to see closed ones') but completely ignores the 'limit' parameter. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain limit's purpose or behavior.

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 lists commitments (instructions given to this athlete) with ids, and specifies the scope as 'your own instructions from earlier turns.' It distinguishes from siblings like close_commitment by focusing on listing rather than modifying.

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 provides context for when to call: 'to see closed ones too, or to check what you told them about a specific date before you say it again.' This implies when to use it over relying on the snapshot, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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