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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the write side effect (committing a file to GitHub) and the approval/ownership preconditions. It stops short of stating auth requirements, idempotency behavior for an already-registered npub, or failure modes, which would matter for a mutation tool.

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 core action, then the protocol context. The three-step enumeration is somewhat verbose but each line maps to a real sibling tool and genuinely disambiguates ordering, so it earns its space.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers preconditions and side effects well. Missing only operational details like auth requirements and duplicate-registration handling, which is a minor gap for a four-param mutation tool.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'must already exist as a prime_authority or authority' constraint on upstream_authority_npub. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Register a new Authority in the DPYC community registry') and pins down the concrete side effect ('Commits a new members/authorities/{npub}.json file to dpyc-community on GitHub'). This clearly separates it from siblings like register_operator and register_advocate.

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?

Explicitly states the calling context (called by an Authority service at the end of the onboarding protocol) and the precondition (candidate proved npub ownership, Prime Authority approved). It also names the two preceding steps register_authority_npub and confirm_authority_claim, so an agent knows this is the terminal step rather than the entry point.

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