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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: the view key 'never touches our SQLite — it flows through to NFPT in memory only,' emphasizes the ephemeral one-off nature, and discloses the $0.50 per call pricing. It does not describe the response format or error behavior, but the essential behavioral traits are transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence adds useful context. However, the pricing details ('Paid via x402 at REST' in title and '$0.50 / call' in description) are somewhat redundant, preventing a perfect score.

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 read-only scan tool with no output schema and 6 parameters, the description effectively covers the main purpose, use case, privacy, and pricing. The schema descriptions for includeNotes and birthdayHeight fill in response details and scan boundaries. Minor gaps include lack of explicit mention of synchronous execution or authentication method (beyond 'paid via x402'), but overall it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including detailed context for viewKey, toHeight, includeNotes, and birthdayHeight. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, but this is acceptable given the schema's comprehensiveness, warranting the baseline score.

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 states 'Return all spendable + spent notes for a view key without setting up a watch,' which uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this one-off scan from the persistent watch tools (e.g., seneschal_private_watch_create). The title further clarifies it as a 'One-off historical scan'.

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: 'Use this when you want to reconcile a wallet at a point in time.' It contrasts with watch setup ('without setting up a watch') but does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools, so it slightly misses the highest benchmark.

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