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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free, polls via MCP-to-MCP, and returns status values ('pending/approved/rejected/provisioned'), implying it is read-only. However, it does not detail error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects. Still, it provides enough context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: just two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides essential details (free, polling, possible statuses) in a clear, efficient format.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the return values are documented separately. The complexity is low (2 params, 1 required), and the description covers the main purpose and behavior. However, it omits explanation of the dpop_token parameter and does not mention error scenarios. Overall, it is nearly complete but has a minor gap.

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 schema has 2 parameters (authority_npub required, dpop_token optional) but schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'chosen Authority' which maps to authority_npub, but does not explain dpop_token. Thus, only one parameter is partially described. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Check this operator's adoption-request status at a chosen Authority.' This specifies the verb (check), the resource (adoption-request status), and the context (operator at Authority). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like weather_request_adoption (which creates a request) and weather_get_operator_onboarding_status (which checks 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?

The description says 'Free. Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP for the status of this operator's request.' It indicates that the tool is free and performs polling, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., weather_request_adoption). There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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