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

There are no annotations, so the description has the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List recent,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose scope (e.g., own records vs all), ordering, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that uses every word meaningfully: verb, object, and scope. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with an output schema and complete parameter schema, the description covers the core purpose but leaves gaps in usage guidance and behavioral context. It does not explain what qualifies as 'recent' or how this tool relates to other notarization lookup tools, which would be expected given the lack of annotations.

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 100% coverage: both 'limit' and 'status' have descriptions with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 because the schema fully documents them.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'Bitcoin notarization records,' with 'recent' scoping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like exacalibur_get_notarization_proof, which targets a single proof, and exacalibur_notarize_ledger, which creates a record.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. The description does not indicate when to choose this tool over related ones like exacalibur_get_notarization_proof or exacalibur_check_proof_status, nor any exclusions.

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