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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds substantial behavior: advancing liveness clock separately from operator standing, dark-node semantics, fail-closed on bad/absent/replayed signatures/stale timestamps, and no-token auth. This goes far beyond annotations.

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 dense but nearly every clause carries unique information about auth, liveness, failure, and return shape. It loses a point for the awkward 'Example: call ... with arguments {}' note, which is confusing given five required parameters, and for being somewhat run-on.

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?

Despite no output schema, it states the exact success and error return shapes. With high schema coverage and complex auth/liveness semantics, the description covers auth, failure modes, side effects, and independence from operator standing, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 already documents all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable auth/envelope context (signed envelope over node_id, nonce, timestamp, route; version/catalog digest/journal head as payload) that explains why parameters exist, though it does not add per-field syntax.

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 states a specific action ('a self-hosted node reports in to the hub') with a clear resource and direction (node-initiated, hub never calls the node). This differentiates it from sibling federation tools and leaves no ambiguity about the operation's role.

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: this is the node's own initiative, not a hub call, and it explicitly says no operator token is required because the signature is the auth. It does not enumerate alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to select it.

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