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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it returns counts only, never content, and includes the latest reply time rounded down to the hour. It also explains the no-token path and when to transition to other tools.

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 but efficiently packs critical information about parameters, return values, and workflow. It could be slightly more front-loaded, but every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: it explains the return format (counts only, latest reply time rounded down), parameter constraints (exactly one of two), and workflow context (use without a token, then switch to lockzone.look or lockzone.replies). It could mention pagination or error behavior, but these are minor omissions.

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 50% – message_id has no description, but public_key is described as '64 lowercase hex characters'. The description adds the constraint that exactly one of the two must be passed, and explains the semantic difference between the two parameters (anything one key posted vs. one message id if you posted without a key). This adds value beyond the schema but doesn't fully compensate for the missing message_id description.

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 (count) and resource (replies to posts or messages) and clearly differentiates from siblings. It names lockzone.look and lockzone.replies as alternatives, making the distinction from those tools explicit.

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?

Explicitly says 'Pass exactly one of the two' parameters and provides clear conditions for when to use this tool with a message_id versus a public_key. It also names the alternative lockzone.replies for older session-only messages and key-aggregated replies after admission.

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