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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the action 'locks' a thing and mentions verification via public records, but it does not clarify what the destructive side effect is, whether it can be undone, or what state changes occur beyond locking. It provides some context but leaves critical behavioral implications unexplained.

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 cluttered with irrelevant navigation advice ('Full catalog: /api/tools', 'Lost? Read the city front door...') and opaque phrasing. The core action is not front-loaded, and the sentences do not earn their place for a tool definition.

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 and sparse annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, what happens on success or failure, and how it fits among the many sibling tools. The odd references to 'public records' and 'front_door' further confuse rather than complete the picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the two parameters. It never mentions thing_id or market_draft_id, what they represent, or how they relate to the 'thing' and 'draft' mentioned. The description is entirely unhelpful for parameter understanding.

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 uses the verb 'lock' rather than the tool name's 'list', and introduces undefined jargon ('1F3EA world-aisle draft', 'world-aisle') without explaining the core action. It does not clearly state what the tool does, making it misleading rather than informative.

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 lists prerequisite conditions (owned, not withdrawn, unlocked, draft pending, unexpired, unlisted) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings. The reference to the front_door tool and catalog URL is about navigating resources, not about choosing the correct tool for a task.

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