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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the result is returned only after builder-side RPC simulation, that approval is gated by safeToApprove/approvalBlocked, and that the hosted builder never receives keypair bytes and requires local finalization for signing. These are material behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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, prerequisite, and return behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, with supporting payment/signing guidance following in a labeled block. The SAP execution guidance is verbose and repeated in the schema, but each clause carries distinct operational value.

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 one-parameter unsigned transaction builder with an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, simulation gate, approval handling, payment routing, and signer boundary. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and reason about the result 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the only parameter (owner) as a base58 public key. The description adds context about not sending private key material and not guessing aliases, but no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to initialize a user staking account on Adrena.' It differentiates from sibling stake/liquidity tools by explicitly calling out the prerequisite relationship with add_liquid_stake and add_locked_stake.

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 explicit sequencing ('Must be called before add_liquid_stake or add_locked_stake'), approval conditions ('Show approval only when safeToApprove=true... otherwise do not call finalize'), and SAP routing/payment instructions (estimate first, then pay/build or use sap_payments_call_paid_tool). This tells an agent exactly when and how to use the tool.

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