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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the record contents, the scope (Mt. Gox through a 2026 Coldcard defect), and the inclusivity policy that self-custody failures count equally. It doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or pagination/volume behavior, but 'registry' and 'list' strongly imply a non-destructive read.

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?

Front-loads the identity of the registry, then adds scope and usage in compact sentences with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does: root cause, reported loss, lesson, and reachable custody configurations. Between that and the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and both enum parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description corroborates the filtering concepts (failure class, reachable configurations) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific resource (the Proof of Custody incident registry of dated bitcoin custody failures) and enumerates the concrete fields each record carries: root cause, reported loss, lesson, and reachable configurations. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like get_coldcard_incident_status (single-incident status) or compare_custody_platforms.

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?

States clear usage contexts: custody risk questions, historical hacks, and whether a given setup would have survived a failure class. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark, but the when-to-use signal is solid.

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