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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List recent Bitcoin notarization records,' which implies a read-only operation but gives no details on ordering, time window, side effects, or requirements. It does not add meaningful context beyond what the tool's name and schema already suggest.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the action and object. There is no fluff or repetitive phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the key verb.

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 relatively simple, with an output schema covering return values and full schema descriptions for parameters. However, the description lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not explain what 'recent' means in terms of sorting or time range. While it is adequate for basic invocation, it could be more complete by mentioning alternatives or clarifying behavior, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 both parameters (limit and status) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add any new meaning about parameters; it merely uses 'recent' informally, which could relate to limit but is not explicitly connected. Per the rubric, this is a baseline 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource 'Bitcoin notarization records,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like brain_get_notarization_proof (gets a specific proof) and brain_notarize_ledger (creates a notarization). The qualifier 'recent' adds some context about the scope. It is a clear, direct statement of the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that brain_get_notarization_proof should be used for a single record, nor does it indicate any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit usage is the verb 'list,' which is not enough to help an agent choose between this and related notarization tools.

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