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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the HTTP verb/path and the set of state fields returned, which is modest extra context; it says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or freshness of the state values.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core resource is front-loaded before the returned fields. The telegraphic fragment style ('One lock/door by id: ...') is compact but slightly clipped rather than fully polished.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description usefully enumerates the returned state fields and identifies the endpoint, which is enough for an agent to call this correctly. It could add a note on what happens when the id does not resolve, but the essential information is present.

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% with a single required parameter fully documented as 'The lock id (numeric)'. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

"One lock/door by id" states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (lock/door), and the enumerated fields (online/unlocked/locked-down state, place, floor, settings) confirm it is a single-entity fetch. It implicitly distinguishes itself from kisi_list_locks via 'one ... by id', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 'by id' phrasing and the closing 'GET /locks/{id}' imply when this is used (single-record lookup by identifier), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over kisi_list_locks or kisi_list_group_locks, and no prerequisites or exclusions given.

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