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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, requires dpop_token for proof, and explains behavior per service type. It does not discuss rate limits or error cases, but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 description adequately explains return value types for different service categories. It does not list all possible secrets, but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining why dpop_token is needed (proof of ownership) and how patron_npub is used. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 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 the tool reports a patron's credential readiness, specifying that for set-once services it shows configured/missing secrets, and for dynamic/OAuth2 services it reports no credentials needed. This distinguishes it from siblings like weather_delete_patron_credential or weather_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?

The description implies usage for checking readiness before credential-dependent operations, and explicitly states proof of npub ownership is required. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sensitive information provides sufficient guidance.

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