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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the requirement of Schnorr proof for external npub and the fallback to self-inspection without proof. This goes beyond the basic function and adds security context.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 tool with low complexity (2 optional params, output schema present), the description covers core behavior and security. However, the dpop_token parameter is unexplained, which is a notable gap. Overall adequate but not perfect.

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 covers 50% of parameters (only npub has a description). The description adds meaning for npub by explaining the proof requirement and fallback, but the dpop_token parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap.

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 verb 'View' and specifies the resources: 'registration status, balance summary, and the Authority's Nostr npub.' This directly indicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from numerous sibling tools that deal with other aspects of authority operations.

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 implies usage scenarios by explaining the npub parameter behavior (requires proof for external npub, self-inspection for empty). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternative sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about context.

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