object_lock_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by tagging it [READ][risk=low] and explaining the non-obvious stacking semantics of retention vs legal hold. It also says what the call answers (deletable now, what blocks it), which is real behavioral context beyond 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-loaded with a purpose line, then the deletability answer, then the stacking caveat, then a compact Args block. Every element earns its place; the stacking paragraph is slightly long but is the kind of nuance an agent cannot infer.

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 read-only status tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs, semantics, and the central result (deletable or not, and blocking factors). It stops short of describing the remaining return fields (retention mode/expiry, hold state), which would fully close the gap given no output schema.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it explains bucket_name/object_name sources, that version_id defaults to the current version, and that target defaults to the configured target. This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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: reports retention/legal-hold state for one object version and whether it is deletable. This clearly separates it from the sibling setters (set_object_retention, set_legal_hold) and from the bucket-level bucket_lock_config, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Implicitly positions itself as the read counterpart to set_object_retention/set_legal_hold and tells the agent where to get inputs (bucket_ls, bucket_objects), but never gives an explicit 'use this when…' or names an alternative such as bucket_lock_config or diagnose_retention_gaps. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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