user_lockout_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the platform-specific error response and clarifies it is a definitive answer, not a fault. However, it does not describe the success return payload or other edge cases, leaving some gap.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then a critical platform caveat, then parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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 simple status tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, platform constraints, arguments, and error handling. It could be slightly more detailed about the successful return value, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, but the description explains user_id originates from list_users and target is an IdP config name with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema field names.

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?

The description clearly states it reads brute-force lockout status for one user, explicitly scopes to Keycloak, and differentiates from sibling login_failure_rca. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'KEYCLOAK ONLY', explains what happens on authentik, and directs to login_failure_rca as the alternative. It also provides 'do not retry' guidance, which is excellent usage instruction.

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