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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses authentication, the absence of a wallet_id parameter, batched anchoring identical to transparency_latest, and the meaning of bsv_txid reading 'pending'. It also clarifies that not-yet-batched is not unanchored, which is a non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: the first sentence defines the output, the second explains authentication and parameter absence, and the third covers anchoring semantics. It front-loads the core purpose and layers nuance without repetition.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the returned fields (leaf hash, Merkle sibling path, root, txid, verification), explains the pending state, and directs the agent to transparency_latest for the latest anchored root.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explicitly explaining why there is no wallet_id argument: the backend resolves the wallet from the bearer token. This removes any ambiguity an agent might have about how to identify the wallet.

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 states a specific resource and purpose: a cryptographic inclusion proof for the caller's wallet balance in the latest hourly transparency attestation. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting the wallet is resolved from the credential, not passed as an argument, and by referencing transparency_latest for anchored-root needs.

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?

It gives clear context: bearer auth is required, no wallet_id is accepted, and the backend resolves the wallet from the token. It also routes the user to transparency_latest.last_anchored when they need the most recent anchored root, though it does not explicitly contrast with verify_proof or bridge_proof.

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