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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the tool generates a proof rather than mutating data, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what happens if the patron's balance was not included in the snapshot.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides the necessary context. There is no redundant wording or repetition of the title, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has only two required parameters, both fully described in the schema, and an output schema exists, which reduces the need to document return values. The description explains the tool's purpose sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could be slightly more complete by noting where the notarization_id originates.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters are minimally documented in the schema ('Nostr public key' and 'notarization record ID'), and the description adds little beyond linking them to the patron balance and notarized snapshot context. This is adequate but does not elevate the semantics further.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and a precise resource ('Merkle inclusion proof that a patron's balance was included in a Bitcoin-notarized snapshot'). This clearly differentiates it from related siblings such as goodearth_list_notarizations, goodearth_notarize_ledger, and goodearth_check_proof_status, because the proof-generation purpose is explicit and unique.

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 the tool should be used when a Merkle inclusion proof for a patron's balance in a notarized snapshot is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as first listing notarizations to obtain a notarization_id.

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