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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds two genuinely useful facts not in the structured fields: the authorization requirement (Bearer bot API key) and that the bond is 'slashable' (i.e., funds can be forfeited). It could additionally note that status is a read while lock/unlock mutate state, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action set and resource, then the standing rationale and auth requirement. No filler, though the auth sentence could be folded in more tightly.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers auth and the value of bonding but omits amountUnits semantics and the idempotency-key prerequisite for lock/unlock. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 33% – only idempotencyKey is documented in the schema. The description mentions the action values indirectly but says nothing about what amountUnits means or its units/format, and does not explain that an idempotency key is needed for lock/unlock. With low coverage, the description is required to compensate and it does not.

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 resource ('a slashable JEY bond held by your workspace') and the three operations ('status, lock or unlock'), which maps directly onto the action enum. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like jey_standing or jey_balances, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'A sufficient bond is one path to established standing' gives a rationale for locking but implies rather than states when to use status vs unlock, and gives no exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow from the enum values alone.

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