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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the destructive nature ('Deletes every stored model'), the reinitialization behavior, and the return value. It also flags the operator authorization requirement. It could add failure modes or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 three short, purposeful segments: a one-line summary, implementation detail, and restriction. Every sentence adds information; 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 destructive admin tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is destroyed, what is created, the authorization requirement, and the return. It omits the meaning of dpop_token and any preconditions beyond operator status, but these are covered well enough for an agent to call the tool safely.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, dpop_token, with zero description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. The 'requires proof' line hints at authentication but does not tie it to the parameter, leaving an agent to guess what value to supply or whether it is required despite being optional in 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 action (erase and restore) on a specific resource (pricing models), and distinguishes from siblings like goodearth_get_pricing_model and goodearth_set_pricing_model by its destructive reset semantics. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from read/update alternatives.

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?

It gives an explicit restriction (operator only, nsec-signed proof) and implies the use case of recovering from a bad pricing configuration. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide guidance on when to prefer this over set_pricing_model, leaving some inference required.

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