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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the actual side effect: the email is sent to a third-party CRM along with the report link, and the user receives at most one follow-up. It also clarifies the no-usage-limit behavior, which is real operational context an agent needs before invoking a non-read-only tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payoff of unlocking, followed by side effects and then the usage constraint. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations; nothing is redundant.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing exactly what is returned (failing and warning checks, per-platform fixes, written summary). Combined with the disclosed email side effect and consent constraint, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds genuine meaning for the email parameter by explaining where it is transmitted and that it must be user-provided for this purpose, and it implies the id links back to audit_site output. It does not add format or validation detail for id beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Unlocks a report") and immediately enumerates what the unlock yields: failing/warning checks with detail, platform-specific fixes, and the written summary. This clearly separates it from get_report, list_checks, and explain_fix without needing their schemas.

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 an explicit precondition ("Only call this with an email the user gave you for this purpose") and notes there is no usage limit, which tells the agent it need not ration calls. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. get_report for the un-unlocked version), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than complete.

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