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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return of staked joules less slashed amounts, which is a behavioral detail. It also reveals the failure condition (pending assessments) and the required permission (marketplace:write). This is thorough, though it could mention the exact response format or status codes.

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 concise but packed with necessary information. It starts with the action, then the endpoint, then key behavioral details, and ends with requirements. No fluff; every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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?

Given only one parameter successful, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: the purpose, the parameter, the return behavior, failure conditions, and required permissions. It is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without further information.

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?

While the schema has 0% coverage Geometric, the description explicitly states that wallet_id is required and explains it is sent as a query parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Wallet Id' title. It doesn't explain what a UUID is, but it's clear enough for an agent.

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 the action (deregister and unstake), the resource (oracle wallet), and the exact endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like oracle_register and oracle_assess by noting the different request body style and the specific backend read pattern.

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 mentions the requirement of pending assessments as a failure condition, which is critical for when to use this tool. It also differentiates from register/assess by noting the query parameter versus body, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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