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

With no annotations provided, the burden falls entirely on the description. It only states that the tool lists records and calls them 'recent', but doesn't explain ordering guarantees, time window, side effects, access requirements, or whether the results are derived from the Bitcoin blockchain. The term 'recent' is vague and unquantified.

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 focused sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, front-loading the essential purpose without unnecessary details.

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 output schema and parameter schema cover the technical details, but the description lacks clarification of what 'recent' means (e.g., a default time window) and how it might relate to status values. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent with some ambiguity about the exact result scope, though the basics are sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear explanations for both 'limit' and 'status'. The description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 'List recent Bitcoin notarization records' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like notarize_ledger (which creates) and get_notarization_proof (which retrieves a single proof), so an agent can easily differentiate 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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as get_notarization_proof or check_proof_status. The description lacks any context for when listing is appropriate versus retrieving a specific proof or creating a notarization.

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