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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere. It adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the empty-state contract (state "none" when nothing is locked) and a field-by-field account of what a populated response contains. Without an output schema, this disclosure is the main source of return-value insight.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the empty-state caveat, with no filler. The first sentence is long and colon-heavy, packing four distinct return fields into one clause chain, which is dense but each clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at the field level while also covering the null case. What is missing is structural detail such as nesting or field names, so an agent knows the content but not the exact payload shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description makes clear the tool is parameterless by describing a singular, self-contained lookup rather than a filtered query, which sets the right expectation.

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 names the specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: the leaking funnel step, its monthly cost at selection time, the single prescribed fix plus any prep step, and the measurement plan. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name, and it is clearly distinct from get_history or get_fix_prompt. It stops short of 5 because the verb is implicit ("The locked constraint") and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for reading the currently locked constraint, and the note that state "none" is returned when nothing is locked hints at a precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no guidance on when to prefer get_fix_prompt or get_status instead, which matters given several overlapping siblings.

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