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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific workflow (PayGate fetches the URL, confirms the token, awards a badge) and the benefit (increased visibility). It doesn't overstate or contradict annotations, and provides useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the procedure and value. Every sentence contributes new information, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the workflow, prerequisites, and expected outcome. It does not mention error conditions or the response format, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make this acceptable.

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 sole parameter (api_key) is fully described in the schema, and the description adds meaningful provenance by specifying it comes from register_server. This clarifies which key to use and why, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prove') and resource ('ownership of the server they listed'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_earnings or register_server. It also explains the outcome (trusted badge) and the mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use after they have published their verification token...') and notes a prerequisite (requires the api_key from register_server). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context makes it clear this is the only verification tool among siblings.

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