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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a meaningful scope limitation ('Reads public lock accounts only') and lists what each lock reports. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: function, usage context, and scope limitation.

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 one simple parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately implies the return content by listing the fields each lock reports. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter (mint) with 100% coverage and a clear base58 description. The tool description adds no additional parameter constraints or formats beyond endorsing that it reads the token's locks, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read a Solana token's on-chain locks') and enumerates the exact data points returned (supply vesting, locked liquidity, cliff, start, period, released amounts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check_* tools like check_token_delegates or check_frozen_tokens.

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 triggering condition: 'Use it when a user asks when a token unlocks or whether its liquidity is locked.' It does not name alternatives or negative conditions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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