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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Reads the local telemetry dataset without database writes' and adds substantial extra behavior: rate limiting (60 req/min shared), selector exclusivity, empty-array behavior on unmatched queries, and specific error codes. It also notes no payment is required, going beyond 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 lengthy but organized into clear labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, PARAMETERS, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS, ERRORS) and front-loads purpose and usage. Every section carries distinct information; the verbosity is justified by the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple selectors, and constraints). It is not tautological or wasteful.

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?

For a tool with this many parameters and selection modes, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, usage boundaries, parameter constraints, behavioral specifics, return shape, and error handling. The output schema exists, so return details are optional, but the description still clarifies the records array and projection behavior. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents every parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's PARAMETERS section mostly paraphrases the schema but adds the critical mutual-exclusivity rule among days/date/blockHeight and range selectors, plus the lower/upper bound constraint, which the schema does not convey. That extra semantic adds genuine value beyond schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves Bitcoin Stratigraphy telemetry records' and enumerates the exact selection keys (recent-day count, date, block height, or inclusive date and block ranges). It explicitly names the sibling tool it is not ('Do NOT use for catalog coverage discovery; use stratigraphy.list instead'), so an agent can unambiguously distinguish it from stratigraphy.list without inspecting schemas.

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 USAGE section explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to fetch telemetry records and selected thermodynamic metrics') and when not to, naming the alternative (stratigraphy.list). It also details selector exclusivity rules and bound constraints, leaving no ambiguity about invocation conditions.

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