user_lockout_status

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the exact error shape returned on authentik and interprets it as a definitive platform answer rather than a fault. That is a real behavioral trait an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the read marker and the core purpose, then the platform caveat, then the args. Every sentence earns its place, though the authentik warning runs a little long for the information it conveys.

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-param read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the platform constraint, the failure response shape, and both arguments. It stops short of describing the success payload, but nothing needed to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params, and it does: user_id is sourced from list_users and target is an IdP name from config, omittable for the default. It adds provenance and default behavior, though it gives no format hints for the target value.

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+resource (brute-force lockout status for one user) and scopes it precisely to Keycloak attack-detection. It also names what it is not (per-user lockout on authentik), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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 gives when-to-use (Keycloak targets), when-not (authentik, which keeps no lockout register), and the alternative to use instead (login_failure_rca on the failed-auth feed). It even preempts the wrong reaction ('do not retry, do not report as broken').

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