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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly. It discloses that the tool resolves the Authority's MCP endpoint, mints an inline ownership proof with the operator's nsec, delivers the request MCP-to-MCP, and records a pending state until the Authority provisions the operator.

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 dense but well-structured: action first, then restrictions, workflow, and expected outcome. Every sentence adds useful information, and the use of inline code formatting for adoption_status and ready improves scannability.

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 description covers prerequisites, the delegated and asynchronous nature of the request, the expected pending state, and how to monitor completion. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the benchmark baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains why dpop_token is needed (proof of npub control), what service_url is used for (advertised endpoint), and that the request targets a chosen authority via authority_npub. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions without being exhaustive.

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: 'Ask a chosen Authority to adopt this operator.' It also frames this as 'deferred courtship,' distinguishing the request action from status polling and other adoption-related tools. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling taxsort_adoption_status.

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 npub control, giving clear when-to-use conditions. It also directs the caller to 'Poll adoption_status for progress,' naming the specific sibling tool for the follow-up action.

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