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 describes the operation as generating a proof, which suggests a non-mutating computational action, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what prerequisites are required, or what happens if the notarization ID or npub is invalid. It adds useful technical context about the proof being Merkle-based and Bitcoin-notarized, but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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-constructed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key purpose and includes enough technical specificity to be useful without being verbose.

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 two fully documented parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers what the tool does and the domain context. It is mostly complete, though explicit usage guidance or read-only clarification would make it fully self-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters (npub and notarization_id). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names a precise resource ('Merkle inclusion proof') plus the context ('patron's balance included in a Bitcoin-notarized snapshot'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic get/list tools and tells the agent exactly what the tool produces.

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 usage when a Merkle proof for a specific notarized snapshot is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related tools like roastify_list_notarizations, roastify_notarize_ledger, or roastify_receive_npub_proof. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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