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 states the tool is free, requires proof of npub ownership via dpop_token, and mentions that credential presence is sensitive information. It also describes the different behavior for set-once vs dynamic services. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides behavior details, and ends with cost and authentication notes. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema provided), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does for each service type, the cost, and authentication requirements. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that dpop_token is proof of ownership and that it is required because the information is sensitive, which enhances understanding of why the parameter exists.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Report a patron's credential readiness for this operator.' It then differentiates between set-once and dynamic/OAuth2 services, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like excalibur_get_operator_onboarding_status and excalibur_check_oauth_status.

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 explains when the tool is relevant by distinguishing between service types, indicating that for set-once services it shows configured/missing secrets, and for dynamic services it reports no credentials needed. It also notes that proof of npub ownership is required, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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