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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden — and it delivers: discloses the async grant model (records as pending, owner approves on their own time), the side effect of minting an inline proof with the operator's nsec, and the network resolution of the Authority's MCP endpoint from the community registry. All are behavioral traits an agent needs to predict side effects.

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?

Compact ~70-word description with zero filler: purpose and the critical access restriction lead, then mechanism, authority-side behavior, and follow-up ordering follow. 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 request action this is nearly complete: caller eligibility, transport mechanism, authority-side pending behavior, async wait, and how to observe completion are all covered, and the output schema handles return values. The only real gap is edge-case behavior, such as what happens when the target npub is not in the community registry.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds process context that ties params together: it explains that dpop_token is backed by a freshly minted nsec proof and that service_url is the endpoint advertised to the Authority. This reinforces meaning beyond the schema's per-param lines.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Ask a chosen Authority to adopt this operator' — and the parenthetical '(deferred courtship)' signals the async nature. The flow detail (records as pending, owner approves later) clearly separates it from sibling approve/receive/reject tools on the Authority side.

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?

States precisely who may invoke it: 'RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof the caller controls this operator's npub.' Also gives follow-up guidance: 'Poll adoption_status for progress' and the terminal 'ready' state. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it from a 5.

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