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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that states are observed not assumed, that retrying helps for warming_up but not for misconfigured/quota_exceeded, that paid tools fail while free tools remain available, and names the Neon HTTP 402 cause. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a status probe.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the 'Free' cost note in the first line, then structures the lifecycle states as scannable bullets. It is verbose but nearly every line carries operational value; only minor tightening is possible.

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 return values need not be re-explained, and the description adequately covers how to interpret each lifecycle state and what action follows. The missing piece is sibling differentiation within a large authority_* family.

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% for the single optional patron_npub parameter, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the documentation work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check operator readiness') and clarifies the return ('operator lifecycle state'). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely-named siblings like authority_operator_status, authority_service_status, or authority_get_operator_onboarding_status, so the agent cannot route reliably from the description alone.

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?

Provides strong per-state guidance on what to do next (retry on warming_up, call register_operator first on not_registered, remediate on misconfigured/quota_exceeded), which is effectively when-to-use guidance keyed off runtime state. It lacks any guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling status tools.

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