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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail (whether the PIN is synced) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering, which matters for a list operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint reference is mildly redundant for an agent but cheap and occasionally useful for error mapping.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool covered by annotations, but two gaps remain: no mention that results are paginated (page/per_page exist) and no differentiation from the closely named sibling remotelock_list_person_accesses.

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 coverage is 100%, so device_id, page, per_page, and person_type are all documented in the schema. The description's 'users and guests' hints at person_type but adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3.

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 access users and guests who have access to one lock') and adds a differentiating detail about PIN sync. This implicitly contrasts with remotelock_list_person_accesses (people→locks), though the sibling is never named, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus remotelock_list_access_persons, remotelock_list_person_accesses, or remotelock_get_access_person. The agent has to reason about directionality (per-lock vs per-person) on its own.

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