open_precommitment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that it returns a signed immutable digest, that the timeline is hash-chained and tamper-evident, and honestly states the limit about self-reported values. This adds substantial 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?

The description is five sentences but each adds value: purpose, return type, follow-up tools, anchoring option, and honest limitations. It is somewhat dense but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description communicates the return type (signed digest) and the overall workflow. It could specify the exact digest format or error behavior, but for a tool of this complexity, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description mentions claimed_sr and horizon_periods in context but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema gives, matching the baseline 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 states the tool pre-registers a forward claim before outcomes are known, using the 'clinicaltrials.gov for backtests' analogy. It specifies the action (pre-register), resource (strategy's forward claim), and differentiates from related tools by emphasizing the pre-outcome timing.

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 clear context for when to use it (before outcomes) and outlines the follow-up workflow (report_precommit, anchor_receipt). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like open_commitment, but the pre/post distinction is implicit and sufficient.

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