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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the signer-type scope (NIP-07/NIP-46). It does not describe the return shape (e.g., boolean vs. signer type), which matters for an agent deciding its next step.

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, well-front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin. Without an output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing what 'status' returns, which the description does not provide.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs no param documentation and correctly carries none.

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+resource: 'Check whether a ... signer is connected.' Clearly distinguishes the read-only status query from siblings like connect_bunker, disconnect_signer, and sign_event. It does not name those siblings explicitly, which caps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is strongly implied: use it to find out if a signer is already connected before signing or connecting. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as connect_bunker, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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