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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It details the verification of operator control via Schnorr bound, recording a pending row, and a best-effort DM. It also states non-provisioning, making behavior 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?

Concise three-sentence structure with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second adds detail, third clarifies what it does not do. Front-loaded and well-organized.

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 tool's complexity (MCP-to-MCP, cryptographic verification), the description covers the entire behavior: inbound call, verification, state change, notification, and exclusion of provisioning. With output schema present, this is complete.

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% with descriptions. The description adds context by explaining the dpop_token as an inline Schnorr proof bound to the sentinel, which goes beyond the schema. Could briefly mention the other parameters but still adds value.

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 records an operator's adoption request. It uses specific verbs (record, verifies, fires) and explicitly distinguishes from subsequent steps like approval (approve_adoption) and provisioning.

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?

Explicitly states it is called MCP-to-MCP by the operator's request_adoption. Describes what it does (verify, record, notify) and what it does NOT do (provisioning), providing clear context for when to use this tool versus others.

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