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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses a key behavior: the tool requires confirmation before execution ('Confirm (yes/no) before executing'). It also mentions the admin privilege requirement for api_key and clarifies that account_fk is a database ID, not an address. While it does not mention error cases or reversibility, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded, but it has a clear redundancy: the opening sentence 'Unlocks a locked account' is repeated verbatim in the second line. Removing the repetition would tighten it. The parameter docs are well-organized and useful, so the structure is still efficient overall.

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-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, usage prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return type ('a json object'). It does not address edge cases like what happens if the account is already unlocked or whether the operation is reversible, but given the output schema and the detailed param docs, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: api_key requires admin privileges, token is obtained from /access/login, and account_fk is explicitly clarified as an integer database ID (not a string address) and may not be 0, with a source endpoint (/wallet/accounts_list). This goes well beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Unlocks'), resource ('a locked account'), and the exact state transition ('from status_fk=10 to status_fk=1'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_resume or access_resume, which operate on different states. The repetition of 'Unlocks a locked account' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 description implies the tool is for locked accounts via the status_fk transition, and it states prerequisites (admin privileges) and a required confirmation step ('Confirm (yes/no) before executing'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool versus related resume/pause tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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