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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or any rate limits. The term 'recent' is vague and not explained. The existing output schema partially compensates for return format, but behavioral context is insufficient.

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 very short, a single phrase. While concise, it omits potentially useful context like sorting order or default behavior. It is not verbose but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the existence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description provides adequate high-level purpose. However, it lacks details on pagination (beyond 'limit'), ordering, and the exact meaning of 'recent'. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'status'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists recent Bitcoin notarization records, using a specific verb ('List') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'optionality_get_notarization_proof' by implying a collection vs. a single proof, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'optionality_get_notarization_proof' or 'optionality_notarize_ledger'. Lacks context about prerequisites, when to avoid, or alternative tools for specific tasks.

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