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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the core non-mutating behavior (generating a proof from a stored notarization) and the semantic meaning of the proof, but it does not disclose failure modes, such as behavior for an unknown notarization_id or a patron not included in the snapshot, nor any authorization requirements.

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 19-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word carries meaning, and there is no filler, repetition, or boilerplate — an example of genuine economy.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The main gaps are unstated edge-case semantics and the absent usage relationship to the npub_proof siblings, which keeps it just short of fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents npub (Nostr public key, npub1... format) and notarization_id. The description adds only modest connective meaning by mapping 'patron's balance' to npub and the snapshot to notarization_id, with no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Generate') and a specific, technically precise resource ('Merkle inclusion proof' of a patron's balance in a 'Bitcoin-notarized snapshot'). The terminology distinguishes it from overlapping siblings such as taxsort_request_npub_proof and taxsort_receive_npub_proof, which suggest different stages of the proof lifecycle, and from taxsort_check_proof_status, which implies status checking rather than generation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. The usage context is implied by the specific wording — call this when you need cryptographic proof of balance inclusion in a notarized snapshot — but an agent must infer exclusions and edge cases on its own.

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