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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool resolves an Authority endpoint, mints an inline proof using the operator's nsec, delivers MCP-to-MCP, records the request as pending, and requires ownership proof. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and security-sensitive behavior.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded and the rest is dense, valuable process detail with almost no filler. The parenthetical 'deferred courtship' and the long second sentence add a bit of color/compressness but do not seriously hurt scannability.

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 an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the description covers what happens before, during, and after the call: restriction, proof, endpoint resolution, pending state, and polling adoption_status until ready. Minor ambiguity around whether the caller supplies or the tool mints the ownership proof keeps this from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning beyond the field descriptions: it explains why authority_npub is sufficient (endpoint resolved from community registry), ties dpop_token to the ownership-proof requirement, and clarifies service_url's role in MCP-to-MCP delivery. It does not explicitly name each parameter but supplements the schema usefully.

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: 'Ask a chosen Authority to adopt this operator.' It also distinguishes itself from the status-checking sibling by directing the agent to 'Poll adoption_status for progress,' making the request vs. status role unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states the intended use (requesting adoption), explicitly restricts the tool to the operator, and points to adoption_status as the follow-up for progress. It does not enumerate exhaustive when-not-to-use conditions, but the restriction plus the alternative is enough practical guidance.

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