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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it separates transient persistence failures (retry helps) from permanent SQL errors and HTTP 402 quota exhaustion (retrying does NOT help), and notes free tools remain available. This is exactly the failure-mode disclosure an agent 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-loaded summary sentence followed by a well-structured lifecycle-state list; every state adds distinct operational value. Slightly long, but no clearly wasted sentence.

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 values need not be restated, and the description still enumerates the complete lifecycle state space plus what each state implies for subsequent calls. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional patron_npub parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the upstream_oauth block it returns. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Check operator readiness', 'Returns the operator lifecycle state') and adds actionable framing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as brain_service_status or brain_get_operator_onboarding_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 for when to call it (proceed with tool calls once 'ready') and per-state next actions, including routing to register_operator for not_registered, plus a 'Free' cost signal. It does not name alternative status tools or say when not to use this one, so no explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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