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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the token lifetime is 7 days, the proof verification mirrors the human wallet flow, and the token is carried via HTTP header rather than tool arguments. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful operational detail for an auth tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and token duration, and the second explains exactly how to use the result. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 5-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the auth workflow, token lifetime, and token usage. The only noticeable gap is that it does not describe the exact response shape beyond 'returned token', which could require the agent to infer the token field name.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning; 'signed ROLA proof' loosely contextualizes signature/publicKey, but it does not compensate beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific action: exchanging a signed ROLA proof for a 7-day Bearer token. It identifies the tool as 'Step 2' in an authentication flow, distinguishing it from get_challenge (step 1) and from content-oriented siblings like create_page and edit_page.

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 gives clear context by labeling the tool 'Step 2' and by explaining that the returned token must be sent as an Authorization header on later create_page/edit_page calls. It does not explicitly name get_challenge as the required predecessor or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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