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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List recent' without defining 'recent' (e.g., time window, order), pagination behavior, or required permissions. The agent lacks critical understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 short sentence that communicates the core purpose with no extraneous words. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema exists), the description lacks important context such as the meaning of 'recent' and typical use cases. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool that might require understanding of data recency or filters.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (limit and status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'List recent Bitcoin notarization records' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Bitcoin notarization records'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_notarization_proof' (retrieve a specific proof) and 'notarize_ledger' (create a notarization).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify conditions or exclusions. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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