Check Unlock Protocol membership

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, and it explicitly marks the operation as read-only. It also clarifies the key validity condition ('non-expired'), which is useful behavioral semantics. Minor gaps remain around return shape and edge cases like invalid addresses, but the main behavior is 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operative verb and resource, and every phrase ('valid', 'non-expired', 'read-only') adds meaning. No redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are described in the schema. The description defines the exact condition being checked and the read-only safety profile. Without an output schema, the exact return value is left implicit, but 'whether' strongly suggests a boolean-style result, so the gap is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which matches the 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?

Description is specific: it checks whether a wallet holds a valid, non-expired key for an Unlock Protocol lock. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that get lock metadata (unlock_get_lock) or list keys (unlock_list_keys).

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It only implies a membership-checking purpose; it does not state exclusions or direct the agent to siblings for other needs.

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