get_unlock_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly states 'Read-only: issues only Get commands' and 'No parameters required.' It also discloses that data is read from paginated GetTimeSpecGroups, making the safety and data-source behavior clear.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and there is no outright waste. However, the remainder is a long, nested enumeration with multiple parentheticals that is dense and somewhat difficult to scan; splitting it into clearer clauses would improve readability.

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 parameterless report tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the managed groups, the time specs and holidays, the derived window, the active status, and the read-only nature. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further context.

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 input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'No parameters required,' confirming to the agent that no arguments are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') and a specific resource ('managed unlock window'), then precisely scopes it to the 'MCP Unlock Window' portal group, its time spec group, derived window, and active status. This is clearly differentiated from generic get_time_spec* siblings, even though get_daily_unlock_window is not explicitly named.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to report the managed unlock window, its constituent groups/specs, and whether it is currently active. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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