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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful traits: the call is 'Free', it 'Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP', and it reports pending/approved/rejected/provisioned statuses. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what authentication the dpop_token relates to, or any side effects.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information about cost, polling behavior, and returned statuses.

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-value documentation is not necessary, and the core status-check purpose is covered. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, leaving dpop_token unexplained and not referencing the related request tool makes the definition slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only maps 'chosen Authority' to authority_npub and completely ignores dpop_token, leaving the optional authentication token's purpose and format unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check this operator's adoption-request status at a chosen Authority.' It also lists the possible statuses, making the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like roastify_request_adoption.

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 implies this is the status-check counterpart to adoption requests and mentions polling via the Authority MCP-to-MCP, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus roastify_request_adoption or roastify_get_operator_onboarding_status. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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