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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: the exact state change, the requirement that api_key have admin privileges, and a confirmation gate before execution. It does not cover error cases (e.g. account not currently locked) or reversibility, so it falls short of a 5.

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 critical line is front-loaded well, but the description wastes space repeating the purpose sentence and mixes an MCP description with JSDoc-style @param/@return tags. Every sentence is not earning 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 3-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs and the state transition but leaves the return value as a bare 'a json object' and says nothing about failure behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps on the return contract.

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 compensate and largely does: api_key (admin privileges required), token (wallet_api_token from /access/login), and account_fk (a database int ID, not an address, must not be 0, sourced from /wallet/accounts_list). It adds format and source context the bare schema lacks, though the api_key/token string formats remain unspecified.

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+resource ('Unlocks a locked account') plus the exact state transition (status_fk=10 to status_fk=1), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like account_pause and account_resume. The only blemish is the verbatim repetition of 'Unlocks a locked account.' in the second line.

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 by the state transition — you call it when an account is in status_fk=10 — and it adds a 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing' step. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. account_resume/account_pause) and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition, leaving the agent to infer the trigger.

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