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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured facts: the reply contains the PIN, and times are interpreted in the lock's local time zone. The 'WRITE:' prefix is redundant with the annotations.

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 the mutation intent, then the constraint, then the follow-up routing. The 'WRITE:' prefix and the raw 'POST /access_persons' endpoint add little for an agent but are not costly.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the reply includes the PIN. Combined with the full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the guest-vs-user distinction is left implicit.

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 eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including PIN generation and local-time formatting. The description reinforces the local-time semantics of starts_at/ends_at but supplies no additional syntax or constraints, 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 ('creates an access guest') and defines the scope precisely: a PIN/card valid only between starts_at and ends_at. This clearly separates it from remotelock_create_access_user and from granting access.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'It creates the person only; use remotelock_grant_access to give them doors.' That is a real when-to-use-which-tool statement. It does not state when to prefer this over remotelock_create_access_user, which is the adjacent sibling.

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