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 values are never exposed (safety), the tool is free (cost), and requires proof of npub ownership (authorization). It also notes that the list is sensitive. No contradictions or omissions regarding behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core action. Every sentence adds meaningful information (return data, sensitivity, cost, authentication). No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, return content, cost, auth, and sensitivity. It lacks explicit error conditions or behavior for invalid inputs, but for a simple list tool, this is acceptable.

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 does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema; it reiterates that proof of npub ownership is required, which is already implied by the dpop_token parameter. The schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists stored patron credential field names (not values) and provides the return details (names + timestamps). It distinguishes itself from related tools like update or delete by emphasizing that values are never exposed, and the purpose is to verify configured fields and their age.

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 usage (verify configured fields, check ages) and mentions that proof of npub ownership is required, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_patron_credential or delete_patron_credential. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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