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 discloses the cryptographic challenge step, that the nsec never leaves the applicant's device, the required follow-up call (confirm_citizenship), and a 10-minute expiry window. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to sequence the flow correctly.

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 distinction and flow, with no truly wasted sentences. It is somewhat long and repeats the 'registration path' idea across paragraphs, but each block adds routing or sequencing value.

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 (challenge_id, nonce, signing instructions) need not be re-explained, and the description still summarizes them. The challenge-sign-confirm sequence and its time limit make the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for npub (it becomes the patron identity keypair used for credit purchases and service access), but display_name is never explained. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 ('Begin the citizen registration process') and explicitly distinguishes this citizen path from the operator path that goes through the Authority. An agent can tell it apart from register_operator and register_authority without opening any schema.

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?

Specifies who calls it (the Operator on behalf of a patron), that it invokes the Oracle directly, and that no Authority npub is required or consulted. It also names the alternative flow explicitly ('Not to be confused with operator registration, which goes through the Authority via a Nostr DM delegation request').

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