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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the authorization requirement (must prove control of the operator's npub), the mechanics (resolves the Authority's MCP endpoint, mints an inline proof with the nsec, delivers MCP-to-MCP), and the async state transition (records as pending, flips to 'ready' on provisioning). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the restriction, then the mechanism, then the follow-up, so an agent can stop reading once it has what it needs. Slightly verbose in the middle clauses, but every sentence carries signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers prerequisites, delivery mechanics, and the async lifecycle with the correct polling target, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds conceptual meaning to the proof (dpop_token) and endpoint (service_url) but does not give parameter-level format or usage detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('request adoption' of 'this operator' by a chosen Authority) and distinguishes itself from siblings like adoption_status, which it explicitly frames as the follow-up tool. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to ask an Authority to adopt the operator, and it explicitly routes the agent to 'Poll adoption_status for progress' rather than re-invoking. It also states the operator-only restriction, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative beyond the polling follow-up.

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