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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds a useful reliability caveat ('Unproven') and a scope limitation ('Counts and law only'), but the final sentence ('The landlord does not read locker bags') adds no behavioral or operational detail. There is no contradiction with the 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?

At four short sentences it is economical, and the endpoint and scope are front-loaded. However, phrases like 'Never bag bodies' and 'The landlord does not read locker bags' read as flavor or in-group warning rather than functional guidance, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 parameter schema and output schema provide most operational detail, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description is cryptic and does not clarify how locker_desk relates to the many locker siblings, nor what 'counts and law only' concretely means, leaving an agent to guess at the invocation context.

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%, and the schema elaborates each parameter (nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, controller_public_key) with meaning and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a concrete resource and method ('GET /api/locker') and narrows the result to 'counts and law only', which gives some sense of purpose. However, 'Unproven' and 'Never bag bodies' are cryptic, and no explicit verb such as 'retrieve', 'list', or 'count' is used, so an agent gets only a vague idea of what locker_desk actually returns.

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?

The text implies a narrow scope ('Counts and law only') and warns against one misuse ('Never bag bodies'), but it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like locker_read, locker_write, locker_seal, or locker_purge. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternative names.

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