iota_notarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that only the SHA-256 is stored (never the content), that the notarization is locked, non-transferable, and undeletable until 2106, the exact return payload (object id, transaction digest, ledger time, explorer links), that network fees are included, the $0.01 USDC cost, and a p99 latency of 12000ms. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before committing an irreversible write.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is well front-loaded: purpose first, then storage semantics, return values, use cases, verification path, and finally cost/latency. Every clause carries information, though the em-dash-heavy sentence is long enough that splitting cost/latency into its own line would improve scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return fields, and it covers immutability, storage guarantees, pricing, and latency for what is an irreversible mainnet write. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool 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 the schema already documents all four parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds a little by framing the three input modes as mutually exclusive alternatives ('send text, a SHA-256 hash or a URL'), a relationship the schema only partially states (only hash is labeled 'alternative to text'). It does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it stays near the 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 and resource ('IOTA Notarization (Proof of Existence) ... on the IOTA mainnet') and distinguishes itself from the verify sibling by describing the create-side operation ('send text, a SHA-256 hash or a URL and get a tamper-proof timestamp'). An agent can tell it apart from iota_verify or btc_timestamp without opening a schema.

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 concrete usage contexts ('contracts, invoices, AI outputs, datasets, web page evidence or audit logs') and routes the agent to the follow-up alternative ('Check later with iota-verify'), which is explicit alternative naming. It does not, however, state any when-not condition or explain why this chain is preferable to btc_timestamp, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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