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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'Free, no side effects,' explicitly says it 'does not evict the cache or touch relays,' and frames the tool as a safe pre-flight check. This is strong, concrete behavioral transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, usage context second, and behavioral safety third. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, full parameter descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool checks, when to call it, and what side effects it avoids. The reference to check_oauth_status is a useful conceptual anchor, even though that exact tool is not listed among siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents both dpop_token and patron_npub with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds useful context about the token being 'previously-cached' and tied to the paid-call flow, but it does not need to add much parameter-level detail because the schema is already complete.

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 whether a previously-cached dpop_token is still valid.' It also clarifies the tool's role in the npub-proof flow and says it answers whether a next paid call will accept the token, making its purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from other roastify tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'before burning credits on a guaranteed failure.' It also names the alternative flow it mirrors, 'check_oauth_status,' and gives the condition for this variant: 'for the npub-proof flow.' This gives the agent clear routing guidance.

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