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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the destructive nature (erases all models), the initialization process (all tools at 0 sats with UUIDs), and authentication requirement. It stops short of stating irreversibility or other side effects, but covers the essential behavior.

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 sentences with no wasted words: action, process, return, and restriction. Each sentence adds distinct value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description covers core behavior and restriction, but fails to explain the dpop_token parameter, which is a notable omission. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the tool's destructive nature and complexity of authentication deserve more detail.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'dpop_token' with 0% description coverage, and the description makes no mention of it. The agent receives no guidance on its purpose or usage, leaving a significant gap in understanding.

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 erases all pricing models and restores a default, using specific verbs like 'erase' and 'self-initializes'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authority_set_pricing_model' which updates specific models, and 'authority_get_pricing_model' which retrieves.

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 the tool is restricted to operators and requires nsec-signed proof, providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'authority_set_pricing_model' or state when not to use it, lowering the score from 5.

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