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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-mutating polling action ('Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP'), a cost trait ('Free'), and the statuses returned. However, it does not mention auth requirements, errors, or whether a prior adoption request is required, though the read-only nature is reasonably clear.

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 definition is short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the cost and mechanism detail. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. However, for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description still omits relevant context: when an adoption request must already exist, how the Authority is chosen, and what dpop_token does. It is adequate for a simple status poll but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description barely compensates. 'Chosen Authority' maps to authority_npub, but the format and meaning of that parameter are not explained, and dpop_token is never mentioned. The agent gets little beyond the bare parameter names and the default value from the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Check this operator's adoption-request status at a chosen Authority.' This is unique among siblings and not easily confused with goodearth_request_adoption or goodearth_check_proof_status. It also lists the possible statuses, clarifying what the tool returns.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer that checking status is the purpose, but nothing says when to call this instead of goodearth_request_adoption or other status/check tools. No exclusions or fallback routing are provided.

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