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

No output schema exists, so describing the returned fields (name, battery level, locked state, device_id) is genuinely additive. It also underscores the read-only nature beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and cites the underlying API route for parity/debugging. It does not discuss error behavior for an unknown property_id.

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 compact sentences: payload first, safety/route second. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is 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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, return payload, safety profile and endpoint. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters, including the keyid='partner' enum semantics, are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what is already structured, so 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 the smart locks of one property') and enumerates exactly what comes back (name, battery level, locked state, device_id). This clearly separates it from the sibling list/get tools for properties, reservations and thermostats.

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 establishes a scope boundary ('Read only: this tool does not open or close a lock') which implicitly tells the agent this is a read path, but it never states when to prefer it over alternatives or what prerequisite (a valid property_id) must be satisfied. No sibling tools cover locks, so there is nothing to route between, but the 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.