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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a non-destructive write. The description adds valuable context: pricing (paid value-action, preview cost), routing (blocked as hosted accountless write), signer boundary (user-controlled), and OOBE non-custodial nature. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not describe success/failure behavior.

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 verbose with boilerplate about SAP MCP context and execution guidance, which may be repeated across tools. It includes two paragraphs, some of which is generic rather than tool-specific, reducing conciseness.

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 description covers purpose, usage precautions, and execution constraints. However, it lacks explicit guidance on how this tool relates to sibling SAP staking tools (e.g., sap_init_stake, sap_fetch_stake) and does not mention output schema details. Output schema exists, partially mitigating need for return value explanation.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (amount in lamports as decimal string, agent wallet public key). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only generic advice to confirm details, not additional parameter-specific meaning.

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 'Deposit additional stake for an agent wallet,' specifying the verb (deposit) and resource (stake for an agent wallet). It also distinguishes from external AgentKit staking tools, providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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 advises confirming wallet, amount, and unstake timing before writes, and notes distinction from AgentKit tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus internal SAP staking tools like sap_init_stake or sap_complete_unstake, leaving some ambiguity.

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