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 discloses that the check is free, that paid tools fail in certain states, that states are derived from observed failures ('seen, not assumed'), and that warming_up is transient rather than clock-based. It does not explicitly state that the call itself is non-mutating or whether it requires credentials, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loads the purpose ('Check operator readiness') before the state table, and each lifecycle entry conveys distinct, actionable information rather than padding. It is long but the length is justified by the state semantics; the only mild redundancy is restating 'retrying does not help' in two states.

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 formatting need not be explained, and the description covers the complex part — the lifecycle state machine, its causes, and the correct agent reaction to each. For a diagnostic probe with transient vs. permanent failure modes, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 response block. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so the schema baseline of 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 and resource: 'Check operator readiness' and returns the operator lifecycle state. It is clearly a status/probe tool, and the enumerated states make the domain concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as roastify_get_operator_onboarding_status or roastify_service_status, so an agent must infer which status tool to pick.

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?

Gives per-state next actions: 'Proceed with tool calls', 'Retry', 'Call register_operator first', and explicitly states that retrying does NOT help for misconfigured/quota_exceeded. That is strong operational guidance. It stops short of naming alternative tools to use instead of this one, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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