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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the five-path cap, the read-only HTTPS GET restriction, and that the caller must generate/save read_token and host the proof JSON at proof_url. It omits auth requirements, whether enrollment creates persistent state, and any failure/rate-limit behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the workflow prerequisite and token requirement. No filler, though domain jargon slightly reduces immediate scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully indicates a proof JSON with proof_url is returned, covering the key return artifact. But for a five-required-parameter enrollment tool with zero annotation coverage, the unaddressed 'origin' and 'owner_authorized' semantics leave an agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies read_token (caller-generated, private, must be saved) and the read-only-paths constraint, but leaves 'origin' and especially 'owner_authorized' unexplained despite both being required.

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 action (start authorization/origin-control proof enrollment) and its scope: up to five exact read-only HTTPS GET paths. The verb and resource are identifiable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the verification siblings, leaving the agent to infer this is the enrollment step preceding verify_target.

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?

Implies ordering via 'Serve the returned proof JSON at proof_url before verifying,' which signals this precedes verification. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it, so the routing against preflight_pack or verify_target is only implied.

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