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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, requirement for proof of npub ownership via dpop_token, and reason for sensitivity. Lacks details on side effects or performance, but sufficient given the context.

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?

Description is 5 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then provides details on service types and requirements. Clear and well-structured, though could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity of two service types and existence of output schema, description covers what the tool does, how it differs by service, and the proof requirement. No major gaps identified.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds context: explains dpop_token is a kind-27235 event signed by patron_npub for this tool and why proof is needed. This goes beyond schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports a patron's credential readiness, distinguishes between set-once and dynamic OAuth2 services, and specifies what is shown (configured/missing secrets or none needed). This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools.

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?

Description implies usage context (checking credential readiness for a patron) and mentions service types, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools like cypher_get_operator_onboarding_status or cypher_get_patron_credential_fields.

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