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 well: it distinguishes transient from permanent persistence failures ('seen, not assumed', 'Never reported on a clock'), explains that quota_exceeded means HTTP 402 from Neon and that retrying is futile, and clarifies that free tools keep working while paid tools fail. Cost and retry semantics are disclosed explicitly.

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?

Purpose and the 'Free' cost note lead, followed by a scannable bulleted state list where every entry adds distinct operational meaning. Verbose-looking length is justified by the number of distinct states, and no sentence is redundant.

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-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers the full state space, the free/paid cost boundary, and the appropriate remediation per state. An agent has everything needed to interpret and act on the result.

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?

There is a single optional parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents patron_npub and its upstream_oauth effect thoroughly. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Check operator readiness', 'Returns the operator lifecycle state') and enumerates the exact states returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar-looking siblings such as cypher_get_operator_onboarding_status or cypher_service_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Each lifecycle state carries prescriptive next-step guidance: 'Proceed with tool calls', 'Retry', 'retrying does not help', 'Call register_operator first'. That is strong when/when-not guidance. It never states when to prefer this tool over the onboarding/service status siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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