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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it explains proof requirements, endpoint resolution, inline ownership-proof minting with the operator's nsec, MCP-to-MCP delivery, pending state, and eventual ready transition. This is far beyond a vague 'requests adoption' summary.

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 dense but organized: one-sentence purpose, restriction, process, then outcome/follow-up. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds information, though the parenthetical 'deferred courtship' and several protocol terms make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 prerequisites, mechanism, side effects, expected next step, and final state. The output schema covers return values, and the remaining registry/parameter details are not essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 applies. The tool description adds general context around proof minting and the Authority endpoint, but it does not clarify when dpop_token must be supplied versus auto-minted, or how service_url is used when omitted.

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 sentence states a concrete action ('Ask a chosen Authority to adopt this operator') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It differentiates itself from the sibling goodearth_adoption_status, which is for polling progress rather than initiating the adoption.

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 context: it is restricted to the operator, requires proof of npub control, and tells the user to poll adoption_status afterward. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative for checking status, but the follow-up instruction and restriction make the intended use clear.

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