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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the derived source (the operator's upstream_authority_npub) and the read-only nature implicitly, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., operator with no upstream authority), permissions, or lookup cost.

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 action and resource, then the return shape, then the usage note. Three compact sentences with essentially no filler, though the return-shape detail partially duplicates the output schema.

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 are already machine-described, yet the description still summarizes the {npub, url, name} payload helpfully. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/no-authority behavior is unaddressed.

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 0% — the single parameter is a bare "npub" with no description. The text compensates by clarifying it is an operator npub ("Resolve the certifying Authority for an operator npub"), but adds no format, validation, or edge-case guidance beyond that.

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 (resolve) and a specific resource (the certifying Authority for an operator npub), plus what it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like register_authority, how_to_add_authority, and 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?

"Use this after bootstrap to learn — and verify — which Authority signed your config" gives a concrete when-to-use condition and an alternative it replaces (reading GitHub). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming a sibling as an alternative.

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