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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is free, requires proof of npub ownership, and explains why (credential presence is sensitive). It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only) or rate limits, but 'Report' and the getter nature make mutation unlikely.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise service-type breakdown and a one-line access requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has only two well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description needn't describe return values. It covers purpose, service-type behavior, cost, auth requirement, and sensitivity rationale, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only indirect color by stating that proof of npub ownership is required, which reinforces dpop_token's role but does not materially extend it.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, "Report a patron's credential readiness for this operator," naming the exact resource and scope. It then differentiates by service type (set-once vs dynamic/OAuth2) and names specific services, making it clear this is the patron-side readiness check, distinct from sibling tools like authority_get_operator_onboarding_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?

It provides clear context on when the tool applies by breaking out set-once services (shows configured/missing secrets) and dynamic/OAuth2 services (reports none needed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of the 5 threshold.

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