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 discloses that the task is asynchronous, operator-scoped, free, and that Bitcoin confirmation takes 1-6 hours. It does not detail side effects beyond submitting the root, but this is meaningful disclosure for a parameterless background task.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the operational constraints, and the cost model with no filler. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a no-input background task with an output schema available, the description covers the essential context: what it does, who can run it, how long it takes, and whether it costs credits. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already defines an empty object. The description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 names a specific operation ('Build a Merkle tree of all patron balances and submit the root to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps') and a clear resource ('all patron balances'). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_notarization_proof and list_notarizations.

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 gives clear context: it is an operator-only background task, costs no credits, and has a 1-6 hour confirmation window. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for checking the resulting proof status, but the inclusion of access and timing guidance makes usage conditions reasonably clear.

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