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

Given there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation's nature (background, slow), the cost (free), and the access level (operator-only). It doesn't detail what happens to existing notarizations or whether it can be run multiple times, but for a no-parameter tool, these are minor. The description adds value beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. The second sentence clarifies usage context. Every sentence is essential and provides critical information for the agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it does, who can use it, how long it takes, and cost. Minor gaps include any retry behavior or side effects, but for a zero-parameter background task, this is adequate.

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 the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it does not explain the output format either. However, the output schema is present, so return values are covered.

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 action: build a Merkle tree of patron balances and submit the root to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps. This is specific and distinct from other notarization-related tools like get_notarization_proof or list_notarizations. The resource (ledger) and purpose (notarization) are clear.

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 explicitly marks this as an operator-only background task, which tells the agent when to use it (only for operators, as a background operation). It also provides timing expectations (1-6 hours for confirmation) and notes it's free, which helps the agent decide if it's appropriate. No alternatives are named, but the use-case is clear enough to distinguish.

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