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

The description discloses the key behavioral aspects: builds a Merkle tree, submits to Bitcoin, confirmation delay, and cost. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does well but could mention idempotency or side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds essential context about operator restrictions, timeline, and cost.

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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, who can use it, how long it takes, and cost. It is complete for a trigger tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds no further parameter information.

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 builds a Merkle tree of patron balances and submits the root to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps. It specifies it is an operator-only background task, distinguishing it from related tools like cypher_get_notarization_proof.

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 provides context: it is an operator-only background task with a 1-6 hour confirmation time and is free. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an experienced user.

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