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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond it, disclosing that results include badge rules and whether the account holds each badge, recoverability before claim, and per-recipient outstanding items. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is the main value, though batch/failure behavior for multiple locker addresses is not addressed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the usage sentence lands last, which is the right ordering. The middle enumeration of returned fields is long and comma-chained, bordering on run-on, but every listed field earns its place given there is no output schema to carry that burden.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the entire return-value burden and does so thoroughly, covering ownership, badge rules, recoverability, claim links, holdings, and per-recipient state. Required parameters and the network enum are fully documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: the optional account parameter is explained as yielding "everything waiting in it for that account," clarifying its filtering effect rather than just its name. The locker parameter's batch nature is left to the schema's maxItems of 10.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reads one or several AccountLockers") and anchors it to a concrete, recognizable artifact (the console's "Locker info" section). It then enumerates the exact contents returned, so an agent can distinguish it from build_locker_manifest or get_component_state without opening any schema.

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 when-to-use context: "Use before building a claim or a recovery, or to tell a recipient whether a locker is safe to leave tokens in." It does not name a specific alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the explicit-alternative bar, but the trigger conditions are unambiguous.

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