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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the operation is free, has no side effects, does not evict the cache, and does not touch relays. This goes beyond the name and gives the agent confidence about safety.

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?

Three short sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, the usage context follows, and side-effect disclosure closes it. No filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity status-check tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and behavioral guarantees. Nothing essential is missing.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds useful context about the dpop_token being previously cached, but it does not substantially enrich parameter semantics beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: check whether a previously-cached dpop_token is still valid. It distinguishes this tool from other check_* siblings by tying it to the npub-proof flow and even names its analogue, check_oauth_status.

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 clear context for when to call this tool: before a paid call to avoid wasting credits on a guaranteed failure. It references check_oauth_status as the corresponding flow, though it could more explicitly say 'use that for OAuth tokens'.

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