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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it distinguishes transient from permanent failures, states which tools fail versus which remain free, clarifies retry efficacy, and even notes observations are 'seen, not assumed' and 'never reported on a clock.' This is exactly the failure-mode and dependency disclosure a mutating/status tool needs.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose ('Check operator readiness. Returns the operator lifecycle state...') before the enumerated states. The list is long but each state entry carries distinct operational meaning, so little is wasted; it stops short of a 5 only because of its overall length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described, and the description fully enumerates the lifecycle states, their causes, and remediation. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a status result and act on it 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?

The single optional parameter (patron_npub) already has 100% schema description coverage explaining the upstream_oauth block. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (operator readiness / lifecycle state) and promises actionable next-step guidance. An agent understands the tool's job immediately, though it never names the sibling status tools (e.g. service_status, get_operator_onboarding_status) it overlaps with, so differentiation must be inferred.

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 per-state guidance (retry on warming_up, call register_operator on not_registered, retrying won't help on misconfigured/quota_exceeded) tells the agent what to do after each result. It lacks an explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus other status/onboarding siblings, so it's strong context without full alternative routing.

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