Announced commitments and their evidence stages

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, yet the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: stages without evidence return `not_linked`, rows must not be summed because fiscal periods differ and none represents expenditure, and it declares the prompt-injection policy (document text is quoted data) and the verbatim-quote grounding rule. This is well beyond the annotation set.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the ledger contents and return-shape caveat, followed by the evidence/injection rules. Each block earns its place, though the policy sentences sit somewhat outside the tool contract and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and the description instead supplies the domain semantics an agent needs (stage model, `not_linked` sentinel, non-additivity). The only real gap is sibling routing guidance, which is left implicit.

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% and the enum is self-describing, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless maps each topic value to concrete ledger content (portal = FY27 portal amount, doi = DOI investigation support, education = Memorial education line), adding semantic meaning beyond the enum labels.

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 names a specific resource ('the curated commitment ledger') and enumerates exactly what it returns: the FY27 portal amount, DOI investigation support and Memorial education line, each with announcement source and five evidenced stages. The constraint that rows are never summed and none is expenditure further distinguishes it from any spend/budget-actuals sibling.

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?

Scope is implied well enough to infer when this tool applies, but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings such as doi_milestones, portal_search or portal_get_page_text, nor any exclusion condition. Related tools are not named, so routing must be inferred from content alone.

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