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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, requires proof of ownership, and explains behavior for different service types. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'report' implies no mutation.

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 with two paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers variations and prerequisites without 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?

The tool has an output schema, and the description explains what the report contains (configured vs missing secrets). For a query tool, it is fairly complete, though it could mention error conditions or response format.

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% and schema descriptions are adequate. The description adds context about why dpop_token is needed (proof of ownership), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 reports patron credential readiness and distinguishes between set-once and dynamic services. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like schwab_check_oauth_status or schwab_get_operator_onboarding_status, leaving some ambiguity.

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 when to use (checking credential readiness) and mentions prerequisites (proof of npub ownership). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternative tools among the many siblings.

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