taproot_multisig_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is read-only and requires no wallet, which are the key safety facts for a guide-returning tool. It does not describe return format or authentication needs, but those are minor for a static instructional resource.

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 core description is front-loaded and appropriately sized: the first sentence states purpose and the second states read-only/no-wallet. The appended tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to invoking this tool and does not earn its place.

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 low-complexity guide tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. It could be stronger by distinguishing it from related Taproot signing/verification tools, but nothing essential 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%, so both m and n are already documented with defaults, types, and bounds. The description adds the M-of-N framing but no additional syntax, validation rules, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides.

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: returns a step-by-step guide for M-of-N Taproot multisig coordination using OP_CHECKSIGADD. The BIP references and 'between agents' scope distinguish it from sibling tools like taproot_get_pubkey or taproot_verify_cosig.

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 this is the tool to use when you need a coordination guide and notes 'read-only — no wallet needed', which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly compare this guide against related siblings such as taproot_verify_cosig or psbt tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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