Ledger sequence from timestamp

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the resolution rule (floor: equal to or before) and the 404 error cases, which an agent could not infer from the schema, but it says nothing about return shape, auth requirements, or 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the error contract. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 should say more about what a successful call returns (a bare sequence number, or a sequence plus close time?). It covers input interpretation and failure modes adequately but leaves the success payload underspecified.

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%, and the timestamp schema already documents both UNIX-seconds and RFC 3339 formats, so the description largely repeats structured data. The one added meaning is the rounding rule — the returned ledger closes at or before the given time, not the nearest one — which is a genuine clarification but belongs to function behavior rather than the parameter itself.

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 and resource: "Resolve the ledger sequence whose close time is equal to or before the given timestamp." That cleanly separates it from sibling ledger_timestamp_from_sequence (the inverse operation), but the description never names or references that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 use case (converting a wall-clock time into a ledger number) is implied by the phrasing, and the failure conditions (before first ledger, in the future) are spelled out. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ledger_timestamp_from_sequence or which network to pick when the two disagree.

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