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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation returns data, specifies the two authentication modes ('Send ticket, or name and key'), and explains the conditional output. It does not cover error cases or invalid/missing authentication, but for a simple read operation the main behavior is 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 short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, followed by the authentication requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 simple getter with optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the main return behavior, the slot-omission variant, and the authentication options. It does not mention failure modes or edge cases, but nothing critical blocks a correct call.

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 only 25%, so the description must add meaning. It does add significant semantics: 'slot' controls whether a value or list is returned, and 'ticket' is positioned as an alternative to supplying both 'name' and 'key'. It does not explain the format or relationship of name and key in more detail, but it compensates for the sparse schema reasonably well.

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 returns a value in a slot, or the list of slots when slot is omitted, which identifies the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling locker_index, but the verb 'Returns' and the slot/list behavior make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 provides conditional usage guidance: omit slot to list slots, and send either ticket or name and key. However, it does not state when locker_get should be preferred over related siblings like locker_index or locker_put, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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