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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the transaction is unsigned, it returns transactionBase64 only after builder-side RPC simulation passes, hosted builders never receive keypair bytes, and value-moving results must be finalized locally. These are not present in the annotations and materially help an agent understand side effects and safety boundaries. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded and informative, but the SAP MCP execution guidance block is lengthy and partly repeats content already present in the input schema description. It contains useful operational instructions, but could be tightened to avoid boilerplate duplication.

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 the tool's complexity as a paid, hosted transaction builder requiring signing boundaries, the description covers the essential operational points: simulation-gated return, approval gating, payment routing, and local finalization. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields need not be repeated. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds the context that LP tokens are being staked, which reinforces the meaning of the 'amount' parameter, but it does not add new parameter-specific syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to add a liquid stake on Adrena (stake LP tokens).' This clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like sap_adrena_build_add_locked_stake or sap_adrena_build_add_liquidity, but the 'liquid stake' phrasing provides enough differentiation for a careful agent.

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 includes concrete execution guidance: 'estimate first, then pay/build and finalize unsigned transactions locally when returned,' and calls out the conditional approval rule: 'Show approval only when safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false; otherwise do not call finalize.' This provides clear operational context, though it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling build tools.

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