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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the destructive nature: 'deregistration removes the member file entirely, returning the Operator to initial state.' This goes beyond simply saying 'deregister' and informs the agent that the operation eliminates the member record and resets state.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence states the action, followed by the trigger context and the consequence. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the trigger condition, the action, and the resulting state. It could add an explicit irreversibility warning, but 'removes the member file entirely' already conveys the significant consequence.

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%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('Operator from the DPYC community registry'), and further clarifies that deregistration removes the member file entirely. The trigger context ('Called when an Authority disowns an Operator') makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from related tools like register_operator or update_operator.

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 the condition for use: 'Called when an Authority disowns an Operator.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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