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

With no annotations the description carries the full load and does so well: live data, the exact formula source (the payout cron), the 1.5x cap, and the critical semantic that the multiplier is global so locking more spreads the boost rather than raising the number. The 7-day eligibility rule is also disclosed. This is unusually complete behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its outputs. The "Honest by construction" sentence is longer than needed but earns its place by preempting a likely misconception. No filler, though it could be tightened.

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?

No annotations or output schema exist, so the description must explain the return values itself, and it does (percentage locked, multiplier, projections for both). Combined with the constraint disclosure and optional-input behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single param is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the optional amount drives the projected state ("what both become if you lock N more tokens"), clarifying the param's purpose beyond the schema text.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Estimate the lock boost") with concrete outputs enumerated: current locked percentage, the global multiplier, and the projection with N more tokens. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_lock_tier (static tiers) and simulate_allocation (different simulation target).

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?

Gives clear operating context: it simulates current state or a hypothetical lock, and notes the 7-day minimum lock requirement to earn boost. It does not name an alternative or state when to prefer another tool, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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