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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It explains the core checks (amount, address, confirmations) but does not describe edge cases like what happens if the transaction is not found, or whether 'paid enough' includes fees. It remains somewhat opaque about internal behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It captures the essential purpose and parameters efficiently.

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 the output schema exists, the return value is already defined. The description covers the main functionality and parameter semantics, but could include more context on error handling or exact verification logic. Still, it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 schema has zero descriptions, so the description compensates by mapping 'paid enough sats' to min_amount_sats, 'to the expected address' to expected_address, and 'enough confirmations' to min_confirmations. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not detail each parameter individually.

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 a specific verb (verify) and resource (Bitcoin transaction) with precise conditions (paid enough sats to expected address with enough confirmations). This distinguishes it from siblings like tx_status, which likely just checks status, and address_intelligence, which focuses on addresses.

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 usage context: use when you need to confirm payment conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the specificity makes the use case clear.

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