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. It discloses that the tool is free, and each lifecycle state explicitly describes the implications for other tools (e.g., 'Paid tools will fail', 'retrying does NOT help', 'Free tools remain available'). This provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover rate limits or auth details.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with a brief summary sentence followed by a clean bulleted list of lifecycle states. Each state is explained in a single, information-dense line, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 all possible lifecycle states and provides actionable guidance for each, making it complete for an agent to decide whether to call this tool and what to do with its output. The presence of an output schema covers return format details, so the description focuses on the semantics of each state, which it does thoroughly.

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 only parameter (patron_npub) has a thorough description in the input schema, so the tool description's silence on it is acceptable. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter meaning but is not required to.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('operator readiness'), and immediately explains what it returns: lifecycle state and guidance. The enumerated lifecycle states further differentiate it from sibling status tools by focusing specifically on operator readiness.

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 context on when to use this tool: as a readiness check before proceeding with tool calls. It provides per-state next actions (e.g., 'Call register_operator first' for not_registered, and notes that retrying does not help for misconfigured/quota_exceeded). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so a 4 is appropriate.

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