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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, requires proof of npub ownership, and explains that this is because credential presence is sensitive information. The 'Report' framing implies a read operation, and the description clarifies that it indicates which secrets are configured rather than exposing secret values.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, behavior by service type, cost, and the auth requirement. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with 100% schema description coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, service variations, cost, and authentication requirements. It does not detail error cases or output parsing, but the presence of an output schema partially offsets that need.

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 description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema by explaining why both patron_npub and dpop_token are required ('Proof of npub ownership is required because credential presence is sensitive information'), linking the parameters to the purpose of the tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report a patron's credential readiness for this operator.' It further clarifies the two service categories (set-once vs dynamic/OAuth2) and what the tool shows for each, making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'get_operator_onboarding_status'.

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 the tool applies by explaining how it behaves for set-once services (eXcalibur, TheBrain) and dynamic services (Schwab). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, but the usage scenario is unambiguous enough to guide selection among the large sibling list.

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