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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It explains that the tool is free, lists all lifecycle states, and details state-dependent behavior such as paid tools failing on quota_exceeded and free tools remaining available. It does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, though 'Check' implies read-only.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Check operator readiness') and then uses a well-structured bulleted list for the lifecycle states. Each bullet is actionable and necessary; there is minimal repetition beyond the intentionally repeated 'retrying does not help' emphasis in the failure states.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity — one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema present — the description is complete. It explains every possible state, what to do in each, and how paid vs. free tools are affected. An agent can confidently decide when and how to call this tool based solely on the description.

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 input schema already fully documents patron_npub, including its optionality and the upstream_oauth block it triggers. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the purpose: 'Check operator readiness' and says it returns the operator lifecycle state plus next-step guidance. It distinguishes the tool's focus on operator readiness and lifecycle status from nearby siblings like adoption_status or onboarding_status, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

The description gives clear, state-specific guidance on what to do next, such as 'Proceed with tool calls' when ready, 'Try a tool call' when warming up, and 'Call register_operator first' when not_registered. It also explains when paid tools will fail and that retrying does not help in misconfigured/quota_exceeded states. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling status-checking tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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