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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It richly discloses transient vs permanent failures, HTTP 402 quota meaning, free vs paid tool availability, and that states are observed rather than assumed ('seen, not assumed', 'never reported on a clock').

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 purpose, then structured bullet list of states. Every sentence adds operational meaning; no redundant or filler content despite the length being justified by the six states.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers all lifecycle states, next actions, and free/paid impact, leaving no gap for an agent to diagnose operator readiness before making tool calls.

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% for the sole optional parameter patron_npub, and the description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond the schema's own explanation of the upstream_oauth block. The baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking operator readiness and returning lifecycle state. It clearly scopes to session/operator readiness, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_operator_onboarding_status; the lifecycle state list provides implicit differentiation.

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?

Explicit next-action guidance for each lifecycle state: ready -> proceed, warming_up -> retry, misconfigured/quota_exceeded -> paid tools fail and retrying does not help, not_registered -> call register_operator first. Names the alternative tool for one state and gives clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use context.

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