get_btc_multisig_utxos

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description goes beyond by stating 'no device touch' and describing the content of each UTXO (witnessScript + cosigner pubkeys), which adds behavioral context about the output. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is three sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is minimal but includes necessary context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more compact by merging the last two sentences. Still well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides information about the return content (witnessScript + cosigner pubkeys). It covers the tool's role (inspection vs. tx preparation) and safety ('no device touch'). For a straightforward read-only tool with two parameters, this is adequate but could include more about gapLimit defaults or behavior.

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 50%. The description adds value for walletName by linking it to the input pool for prepare_btc_multisig_send. For gapLimit, it only references 'same gap-limit walk as get_btc_multisig_balance,' which does not explain the parameter's meaning or constraints. The description partially compensates for schema gaps but not fully.

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?

The description clearly states it returns the UTXO set for a registered multi-sig wallet, using same gap-limit logic as get_btc_multisig_balance. It explicitly differentiates from prepare_btc_multisig_send by noting internal usage and direct exposure for inspection. Additionally, 'no device touch' clarifies it's a read-only operation.

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 indicates when to use this tool: to 'inspect the spendable set without preparing a tx.' It also notes the tool is used internally by prepare_btc_multisig_send, providing context for alternatives. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or edge cases, but the guidance is clear enough.

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