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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers thoroughly. It states side effects (claims pending proof reply, fires due posts), the asynchronous background execution, immediate return behavior, and the exact return payload. It also explicitly cautions that the poke carries no authority and that the challenge phrase remains operator-gated, preventing a common misunderstood privilege.

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 fully front-loaded with the decisive clause and then expand with important context. It uses clear paragraph breaks for visibility. Every sentence adds something meaningful, though it is slightly long for a simple trigger action. Still, the length is justified by the nuanced authorization semantics.

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?

For a simple trigger tool with no annotations, the description fully covers identity/authorization context, when to call it, side effects, asynchronous behavior, output, and follow-up guidance. It also clarifies how this differs from cron and operator-only actions. The agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result 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?

Only npub has a schema description, and the tool description adds no guidance for the dpop_token. With 2 params and 50% schema coverage, the description fails to explain the auth token's purpose or how an agent should obtain or supply it. Even though npub is briefly described in the schema, the overall parameter guidance is insufficient.

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 precise, specific statement: 'Ask the scheduler to run one tick now,' and then details the exact action (poking /tick and performing due work). It distinguishes the tool from nearby scheduler tools by clarifying it only triggers a tick and cannot approve anything. This goes well beyond restating the tool name.

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 strong situational guidance: use it right after the operator approves in Studio, or when a patron notices a pending authorization while the scheduler is parked. It also explains who can use it ('deliberately NOT operator-only'), but it does not enumerate explicit alternatives or a 'when not to use' section. This is clear context with no exclusions, but slightly below the 5 bar.

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