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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the auth constraint that causes failure and the per-operator scoping of results. It stops short of describing what the slash-status payload contains or what an operator would actually see, which is the only remaining gap.

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 dense clause-packed sentence with the failure constraint and the fallback path front-loaded. No filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an agent everything needed to decide not to call it and what to do instead. The one omission is what "slash status" semantically returns, though that is moot given the tool is unusable over MCP.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The note that the operation is per-operator scoped hints at an implicit identity input.

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?

"Slash status of a bond" identifies the resource (a bond's slash status) but reads as a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the agent must infer that it returns/reads status. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling bonded_status_query.

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?

It states plainly that the tool is refused over MCP (no auth) and names the exact alternative: POST /bonds/<id>/slash-status with a bearer token. That is an explicit when-not-to-use plus a concrete substitute, which is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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