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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the purpose but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, potential errors, or side effects. It doesn't explicitly state that it does not modify data, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage. The term 'Generate' implies a computation, but the non-destructive nature is not disclosed.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the action 'Generate' and provides the essential context. No redundant information or fluff.

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 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose. However, given the tool's domain, it might benefit from mentioning that the proof is cryptographically verifiable or that it does not modify any data. But since the output schema is present, the agent doesn't need return format. The lack of behavioral transparency lowers this slightly, but for the core functionality it is fairly complete.

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%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, linking npub to 'patron's balance' and notarization_id to 'Bitcoin-notarized snapshot', which is a minor clarification. Since the schema already provides these definitions, the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding. 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' with a precise object 'Merkle inclusion proof' and specifies the domain 'Bitcoin-notarized snapshot'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like authority_notarize_ledger (which creates the snapshot) and authority_list_notarizations (which lists). It is not a tautology of the name.

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 the usage context: to prove inclusion of a patron's balance in a notarized snapshot. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit routing like 'use this when you need a proof, not when checking status.' So implied usage, not explicit.

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