taproot_verify_cosig

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: 'Read-only — no wallet unlock required' tells the agent it is safe and stateless, which is exactly the kind of trait annotations would otherwise supply. What is missing is any statement of the outcome shape (pass/fail, error on mismatch), which matters for a verification tool.

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 well front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is unrelated promotional filler that dilutes an otherwise tight definition and occupies a third of the text.

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?

A three-required-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema: the description covers safety and workflow but never says what a successful or failed verification returns, leaving the agent to guess the result contract. Adequate, not complete.

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% — the schema documents the hex lengths, formats (BIP-340, x-only pubkey) and even where to obtain the pubkey. The description adds nothing about the three parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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: verify a Schnorr co-signature against a BIP-341 sighash. The 'BIP-341 sighash' qualifier meaningfully narrows scope versus generic signature checks like schnorr_verify_digest or sip018_verify, though it never names those siblings to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 a concrete workflow trigger: confirm a co-signer's signature is valid before combining and broadcasting. That is clear situational guidance, but there is no when-not-to-use clause and no mention of the sibling verification tools an agent might confuse it with (schnorr_verify_digest, sip018_verify).

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