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

With no annotations, the description adds 'Free' and 'Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP', which are helpful but lacks details on errors, rate limits, or data freshness. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous text; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple status check with output schema available, the description is largely complete. Could mention the output format briefly, but not a major gap.

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 description mentions 'chosen Authority' hinting at authority_npub, but does not explain either parameter (dpop_token or authority_npub) explicitly. Schema coverage is 0%, so description fails to compensate.

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 action ('Check') and the resource ('adoption-request status'), specifies the target ('at a chosen Authority'), and lists possible statuses. This distinguishes it from siblings like request_adoption.

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 explains the tool polls the Authority for status, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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