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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the human-in-the-loop nature, the returned dpop_token that must be remembered, the fact that MCP does not retain it across restarts, the lifecycle expiry, and the destructive drain on receive calls. It clearly states what the tool does and does not do, providing complete behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, flow, return, lifecycle) and every sentence adds value except for the trailing 'Free.' which appears to be extraneous. It is longer than average, but the complexity of the tool and the need for workflow clarity justify the length. The front-loading of the primary purpose and the clear separation of concepts make it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage trigger, workflow, return value, lifecycle, and safety warnings. It references the output schema implicitly by explaining the dpop_token return. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of annotations, the description provides complete contextual information for an agent to use it correctly.

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. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but the schema already thoroughly explains reason, verify_at, and patron_npub. The description's flow-level context (e.g., why verify_at is used) is helpful but not required for parameter understanding. Note: description says patron_npub is Required, but the schema doesn't mark it required—though this is a minor inconsistency, not a contradiction.

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 clearly states the specific verb+resource: 'Request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool request_credential_channel, explicitly stating what this tool does NOT do (deliver service secrets) and naming the alternative. This is a specific, well-differentiated purpose.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use it when a call returns ``proof_required``.' It also provides exclusions with alternatives ('To hand an operator its API keys or OAuth secrets, use ``request_credential_channel`` instead') and detailed workflow steps: stop, ask user, wait for confirmation, then call receive_npub_proof. It also warns against polling/retrying, explaining the destructive nature of receive calls.

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