get_precommit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the entry is 'immutable' and includes the 'current chain head', giving useful context about data persistence and response composition without contradicting 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 a single sentence packed with information: free/public status, immutability, field list, and chain head inclusion. No filler words, and the structure front-loads the most salient attribute (FREE, public).

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying that the registration entry is immutable. It adequately covers the response content for a simple read tool, though it does not mention error handling or response format details.

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 only parameter 'pid' has a schema description ('The pid from open_precommitment') covering 100% of the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, so the schema carries the burden, yielding the baseline score for high coverage.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a precommitment's immutable registration entry, listing the specific fields (strategy id, claimed Sharpe, horizon, signed digest, created_at, on-chain anchor) plus the current chain head. This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_backtest or open_precommitment, as it's a direct read of the public registry entry.

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 notes 'FREE, public', indicating this is the open and costless way to access the registration entry, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear this is for reading the registry entry, not for verification or opening commitments.

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