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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses cost ($0.01 USDC), the chain for settlement (eip155:8453), the payment scheme (EIP-3009 exact), and the two-step PaymentRequired handshake that otherwise would surprise an agent. It stops short of stating irreversibility of an on-chain notarization, auth requirements, or any rate limits.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the action and price, then the retry protocol, then the HTTP escape hatch. Every clause supplies information an agent needs; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the payment flow is well covered. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema coverage on four parameters, the description leaves the meaning of work_hash vs prev_work_hash and the optional signature fields unexplained, which is a real gap for a paid, irreversible-ish operation.

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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning, and it explains only the payment meta-parameter syntax ('params._meta["x402/payment"]'), saying nothing about work_hash, prev_work_hash, agent_sig, or agent_pubkey. That leaves most parameters undocumented, though the payment mechanics it does explain are the highest-risk ones.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Notarize a work hash') plus the backend (AOTrust on NEAR + Base) and distinguishes itself from the sibling notary_free by naming the payment requirement upfront. An agent can tell this is the paid variant rather than a free notarization or verification call.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: call without payment to receive PaymentRequired, then retry with a signed PaymentPayload, and offers the HTTP alternative. It does not explicitly compare against notary_notarize (presumably the other mainnet path) or notary_quote, so sibling disambiguation is left implicit.

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