Check Bitcoin anchor status

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: returns anchor_status, txid, block info, and proof when anchored; notes that anchoring is batched daily so polling may take time. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 simple check tool with one input and no output schema, the description covers input, output fields, and polling behavior. It explains what to expect and gives temporal context (daily batching). 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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'sequence', explaining it is returned by ledgerproof_issue_receipt. The description mentions 'receipt's sequence' but adds no new semantics beyond referencing the same concept.

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 the tool's purpose: checking whether a receipt's daily Merkle root is anchored to Bitcoin. It uses specific verbs ('check') and identifies the resource ('anchor status of receipt'). Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the check 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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: after issuance, and recommends polling until status changes. Mentions daily batching, implying patience. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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