schnorr_verify_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('returns whether the signature is valid'), which is the key trait for a verifier, but says nothing about failure modes (malformed hex, out-of-range key, invalid signature vs. error) or confirming that the call is side-effect free.

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?

The first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the closing 'Tip: call `earning_opportunities`...' is unrelated promotional content that does not help an agent call this tool and dilutes an otherwise clean definition.

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 three-parameter pure verification call with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the return semantics, and a usage context. Only edge-case/error behavior is missing.

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 each of the three parameters is documented with byte length, hex encoding, and meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the parameter list ('takes the digest, signature, and public key') without adding constraints or format guidance, which is baseline.

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 ('Verify a BIP-340 Schnorr signature over a 32-byte digest') with enough technical specificity that an agent can distinguish it from message-verification siblings like btc_verify_message or co-signature tools like taproot_verify_cosig. It does not name any sibling explicitly, 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?

'Use for verifying Taproot signatures from other agents in multisig coordination' gives a concrete usage context, which is more than most definitions offer. It provides no when-not conditions and does not contrast with the several other verify tools (sip018_verify, taproot_verify_cosig, stacks_verify_message) that an agent could easily confuse it with.

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