open_commitment

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

The description says 'Open a commitment', which implies a state change, but annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a contradiction. The description does add useful behavioral details (O(1) folding, no raw storage, honesty check), but the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 the core purpose, and each sentence adds value—purpose, resource characteristics, and an important caveat. No wasted words.

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 explains the return value (commitment_id), the follow-up tool (report_returns), and resource behavior (constant memory, no background compute). It lacks error conditions or authentication details, but those are covered by annotations and schema. The readOnly contradiction slightly detracts, but completeness itself is strong.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions claimed_sr as the promise but doesn't provide additional context for parameters like api_key or periods_per_year.

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 opens a commitment tracked over time and returns a commitment_id. It specifies the resource (commitment) and the action (open), but doesn't differentiate from sibling open_precommitment, so not a 5.

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 implies usage by explaining the flow: open a commitment, then report returns with report_returns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_precommitment, so it's implied rather than explicit.

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