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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it is an operator-only background task, Bitcoin confirmation takes 1-6 hours, and it is free (no credits). This provides substantial transparency beyond the tool's basic operation.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, each serving a purpose: first explains the action, second gives usage constraint, third provides time and cost information. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given zero parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, who can use it (operator-only), behavioral expectations (1-6 hours, free). An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required. The description is fully sufficient for a simple tool.

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, so the baseline score is 4 per instructions. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously.

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 action: building a Merkle tree of patron balances and submitting the root to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps. It uses a specific verb ('Build... and submit') and resource ('all patron balances'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'schwab_get_notarization_proof' or 'schwab_check_balance'.

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 indicates this is an 'Operator-only background task', giving a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The absence of sibling differentiation limits the score.

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