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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose valuable traits: it is a background task, Bitcoin confirmation latency is 1-6 hours, and it costs no credits. It does not state idempotency/re-runnability or the exact operator credential requirement beyond 'operator-only', which is a real gap for an irreversible write to Bitcoin.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the operational caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers what happens, who may run it, latency, and cost. It stops short of covering the credential prerequisite and whether a repeat call is safe or creates a duplicate notarization.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the empty schema is self-explanatory and the description adds no param semantics that could be missing. No syntax or input guidance is needed here.

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?

States a precise verb and mechanism: 'Build a Merkle tree of all patron balances and submit the root to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps.' This is the action tool that creates a notarization, clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like beesknees_get_notarization_proof, beesknees_list_notarizations and beesknees_check_proof_status.

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?

'Operator-only background task' states the audience and mode clearly, effectively excluding ordinary patron use. However, it never routes the agent to the alternatives for retrieving or verifying a notarization, so the when-vs-which guidance is partial.

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