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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool generates a proof, offering no additional behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, required permissions, cost implications, or whether it modifies state). The description is minimal beyond the core action.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding.

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 the tool has an output schema (indicated by context), the description adequately explains the input purpose. It could mention that the tool is read-only, but the output schema likely covers return details. Parameters are fully documented in schema.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'npub' and 'notarization_id' have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a Merkle inclusion proof for a patron's balance in a Bitcoin-notarized snapshot. It uses specific verb 'Generate' and specifies the resource (patron's balance in notarized snapshot), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cypher_notarize_ledger' (creates notarizations) and 'cypher_list_notarizations' (lists them).

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 implies usage for obtaining proof of inclusion but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cypher_check_balance' or 'cypher_check_proof_status'. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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