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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds the entity-state preconditions and a note about public-record verification, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing what locking does to the thing, what happens on failure, or any authorization detail, so with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the 'Lost? Call front_door' escape hatch is brief and useful. But the 'market and city verify each other through public records only' sentence is opaque jargon whose meaning for the caller is unclear, so not every sentence clearly 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema and only coarse annotations, the description supplies the key preconditions and a fallback route, which covers the essentials for calling correctly. It omits return/success behavior and post-lock effects, and given the ambiguous name/title and untranslated jargon, it is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does constrain the referents of both parameters (the thing must be owned/unlocked; the draft must be pending/unexpired/unlisted), which maps meaningfully onto thing_id and market_draft_id. It adds no format or identifier-syntax detail, so it is minimally adequate rather than rich.

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 does give a specific verb+resource ('Lock one thing you own for a pending 1F3EA world-aisle draft'), so the action is identifiable. However, the identifier '1F3EA world-aisle draft' is opaque jargon, and it conflicts with the tool's own name/title ('list_world' / 'List a world thing'), which implies a read rather than a lock. The result is that an agent can infer a mutation but cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like claim_world or transfer.

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?

Usage is implied through a list of preconditions ('the thing must still be owned by you, not withdrawn, and unlocked; the matching draft must be pending, unexpired, and unlisted'), which tells the agent when the call is valid. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Lost? Call front_door' pointer is a help fallback, not differentiation from other candidate tools.

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