get_commitment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the retrieval operation but does not mention whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks explicit behavioral 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?

Two sentences: first states the core purpose, second details the returned data. Every sentence is essential and well-structured with no redundancy.

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 1-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (commitment periods, values, spend attainment). It is nearly complete, though it could mention if the return is paginated or if there are limits, but given simplicity, it's sufficient.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining what the commitment is (EDP) and what details are returned, helping the agent understand the parameter's purpose beyond the schema description.

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 that the tool returns details of a specific EDP commitment contract by ID, including full breakdown of commitment periods, contracted values, and spend attainment. This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from list_commitments which lists commitments.

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 explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied: use when you have a commitment ID and need details. No guidance on when to use this versus list_commitments or other tools.

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