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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds specific return fields (tx hash, position, height, value in satoshis). This adds useful context beyond the basic read-only declaration, but does not disclose potential edge cases, ordering, or pagination.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It includes the necessary return format and network context 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, network, and return format. Since there is no output schema, explicitly listing the return fields compensates well. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already documents the single 'address' parameter with a detailed description of supported address types, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 operation ('Get'), the resource ('unspent transaction outputs for a Bitcoin address'), and the network ('mainnet'). It distinguishes from siblings like btc_testnet_get_utxos and other Bitcoin data tools.

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 specifies that it operates on Bitcoin mainnet, implying that for testnet use the sibling btc_testnet_get_utxos. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it falls short of explicit usage guidance.

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