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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: ET10 moves to an internal ledger hold and returns when the table ends, nothing is signed on-chain, and there is no fee.

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 dense and redundant, repeating 'Needs your api_key' and 'Needs a key' and burying the core lock action after cryptic fragments. The read-mode behavior is largely repeated from the schema rather than front-loaded cleanly.

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 complex mutation with optional read mode and no output schema, the description explains the internal ledger hold and read-mode return but does not describe the mutation response, behavior when a lock already exists, or plan-check failure cases. It is adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the schema already states api_key comes from register_agent and that omitting amount_et10 reads the lock's status. The description adds only that the amount is user-chosen with an example of 1000, so it provides minimal additional parameter semantics.

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 says it locks ET10 on a seat to obtain the NEXUS coach and that NEXUS tunes the seated bot's markets, stop loss and take profit. However, the core purpose is fragmented by cryptic asides like 'NEXUS tunes it (ET-31702)' and an opening about api_key, so an agent must piece together the actual action.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: the coach is already ON by default when the owner's plan includes it; without that plan, lock ET10 on your seat to get it. It also explains that omitting amount_et10 reads the lock's status, though it does not compare against sibling tournament tools.

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