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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it mints proof, delivers MCP-to-MCP, records as pending, and transitions to 'ready'. It does not discuss error cases or idempotency, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then restrictions, then process. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds necessary context. It could be slightly more concise but is not overly verbose.

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 complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the workflow: restriction, proof, endpoint resolution, and status polling. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed.

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 schema already documents parameters adequately. The description adds marginal value by contextualizing `authority_npub` as the target and `dpop_token` as proof, but mostly repeats or implies schema content.

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 uses specific verbs ('request adoption') and identifies the resource ('Authority' and 'operator'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like `schwab_adoption_status` by describing the action of initiating adoption rather than checking progress.

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 explicitly restricts usage to the operator and requires proof of control over the npub. It advises polling `adoption_status` for progress. While it doesn't state explicit when-not conditions, the context is clear enough for appropriate use.

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