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 covered by structured data. The description adds value the annotations do not: it enumerates the state attributes present in each returned lock and maps the tool to GET /locks, which matters because there is no output 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and returned, followed by the filter use case and the HTTP mapping. No filler, no restatement of the title beyond the parenthetical door clarification.

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 11 optional parameters fully documented in the schema and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description only needs to supply the response shape, which it does by listing state fields. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, though the offset parameter already points at pagination.next_offset.

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%, so all 11 parameters (ids, sort, limit, query, offset, online, floor_id, place_id, unlocked, configured, locked_down) are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at filtering generally without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g. combining filters), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List locks/doors') and enumerates the state fields returned (online, unlocked, locked_down, configured, place, floor), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It is implicitly distinguishable from the singular sibling kisi_get_lock and from kisi_list_readers/controllers, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

'Filter to find offline or locked-down doors' gives one concrete use case, which implies the tool's role in auditing/remediation workflows. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not route the agent to alternatives like kisi_get_lock for a single door or kisi_list_group_locks for group-scoped views.

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