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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behaviors. It only states the high-level action without details on side effects (read-only vs. write), failure modes, or authentication needs. The return value is unknown without output schema visibility.

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?

A single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. The structure front-loads the action and result.

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 tool with an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, usage context is minimal; an agent might benefit from knowing this proof verifies inclusion in a snapshot, which is somewhat conveyed.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions (npub and notarization_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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's purpose: generating a Merkle inclusion proof for a patron's balance in a Bitcoin-notarized snapshot. The verb 'generate' and specific resource 'Merkle inclusion proof' make it distinct from siblings like schwab_list_notarizations or schwab_notarize_ledger.

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 versus alternatives, such as schwab_check_proof_status or schwab_list_notarizations. Prerequisites like requiring a prior notarization are implied but not explicit.

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