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

Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-read-only, open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate that safety profile. It adds actionable behavior: locking, ownership and state checks, public-records verification, eligibility rules for remnants and end-set things, and a fallback to front_door. It still omits reversibility and post-success effects, but it is materially richer than 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?

The description is front-loaded with the action, then groups preconditions and eligibility exceptions efficiently. The domain jargon ("1F3EA world-aisle", "remnant", "end set") and the public-records sentence reduce immediate clarity, but there is little obvious filler.

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 destructive, open-world, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the key preconditions, one exclusion, verification, and a fallback. It still omits the post-call effect on the thing or draft and how to source the required IDs, leaving some operational context for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies thing_id must identify an owned, unwithdrawn, unlocked thing and market_draft_id a pending, unexpired, unlisted draft, which adds real constraints beyond bare integers. It still does not explain where to obtain those IDs or what a "world-aisle draft" is, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies a concrete mutation ("Lock one thing you own") and its resource ("pending 1F3EA world-aisle draft"), so it is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish this listing action from sibling tools such as browse or search, and the domain jargon is opaque, so the purpose is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 clear preconditions for use: the thing must be owned, not withdrawn, and unlocked; the matching draft must be pending, unexpired, and unlisted. It also includes one exclusion ("A remnant cannot be listed"), but it does not name alternatives or say when a different sibling should be used instead.

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