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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the restriction to the operator, the requirement to prove control of the npub, the use of the operator's nsec to mint an inline ownership proof, the MCP-to-MCP delivery, and the post-condition that the Authority records it as pending. This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it does not mention potential side effects like external network calls or reversibility.

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 dense but every sentence contributes unique information: the action, restrictions, process steps, and follow-up. It is somewhat long, but the complexity of the operation justifies the length. The use of a metaphor ('deferred courtship') adds flavor without being wordy.

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 complexity (4 parameters, output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, usage context, security implications, process, and expected outcome. It also references the sibling tool 'adoption_status' for progress tracking. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what happens if the caller is not the operator, but the 'RESTRICTED' flag implies it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic context about parameters. It explains why dpop_token is required ('requires proof the caller controls this operator's npub'), what service_url is ('this operator's MCP endpoint'), and the overall role of authority_npub. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the underlying purpose of each parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('Authority to adopt this operator') and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like 'adoption_status' by framing the adoption request as a deferred courtship process. It clearly states the action and outcome, making it unambiguous which tool to call.

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 provides clear context: it is restricted to the operator, describes the flow of resolving the Authority's endpoint, minting a proof, and delivering the request. It explicitly points to 'Poll adoption_status for progress' as a follow-up, which serves as guidance for the next step. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the use case.

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