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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return format ({"escrowed": bool}) and that it is free. It implies a read-only operation without side effects, which is adequate for a simple status check.

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 extremely concise, with two clear sentences front-loading the purpose. Every word serves a purpose without 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 simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, usage context, and cost. It is sufficiently 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 coverage is 50% (npub has description, dpop_token does not). The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it provides minimal added value.

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 states the tool returns whether Optionality holds the patron's nsec, using a specific return format. This distinguishes it from related tools like optionality_escrow_nsec and optionality_withdraw_nsec.

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 specifies the tool is free and polled by the frontend to decide UI affordances, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the context is sufficient.

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