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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses cost ('Free'), terminal vs transient failure modes, that permanent SQL errors and HTTP 402 quota lockouts make paid tools fail while free tools remain available, and that warming_up is a seen failure rather than a clock-based guess.

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 summary followed by a scannable state list; the parenthetical clarifications earn their place because they disambiguate transient vs permanent failures. Some state entries are wordier than strictly needed, but nothing is filler.

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?

Return semantics are backed by an output schema, so the description's job is to explain state meaning and next actions, which it does exhaustively — including the degraded-mode implications for downstream paid tools. An agent has everything needed to call this and act on the result.

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% and the single optional patron_npub parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the upstream_oauth block it triggers. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does the work — the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Check operator readiness') and immediately says what it returns (lifecycle state + next-step guidance). It is clearly differentiated in substance from siblings like service_status or get_operator_onboarding_status, but it never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 lifecycle-state breakdown functions as explicit when/when-not guidance: retry on warming_up, do not retry on misconfigured or quota_exceeded, call register_operator on not_registered. What is missing is routing against sibling tools (e.g., when to use this rather than get_operator_onboarding_status).

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