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 exceptionally well. It explains that warming_up is a transient failure 'seen, not assumed,' that misconfigured means a permanent SQL error where retrying does not help, that quota_exceeded is an HTTP 402 from Neon blocking paid tools while free tools remain available, and that no_identity is a deployment issue. This is exactly the kind of rich behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a structured lifecycle-state list to convey details. Despite its length, every state bullet provides actionable, non-redundant information that helps an agent interpret the result, so no sentence is wasted.

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 the description need not explain return formatting. For a readiness-check tool with no annotations, the description fully covers the possible lifecycle states, their meanings, and the appropriate next steps for each, leaving no critical behavioral gap for an agent to infer.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter patron_npub, including a detailed explanation of the upstream_oauth block it triggers. The tool description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check operator readiness' and 'Returns the operator lifecycle state and clear guidance on what to do next.' This is clear and actionable, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling status-check tools such as schwab_service_status or schwab_get_operator_onboarding_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 lifecycle state descriptions give explicit next actions for each outcome (e.g., 'Retry' for warming_up, 'Call register_operator first' for not_registered, need to repair database for misconfigured). This is strong contextual guidance, but the description does not explicitly state when to call this tool versus other status tools, nor does it list exclusions or alternatives.

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