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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds 'Request unstake' and a warning to confirm before writes, but does not provide additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements, or return value details). The boilerplate execution guidance is generic and not tool-specific.

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 two sentences, but it is followed by a large block of repetitive execution guidance that appears in the description and input schema. This boilerplate significantly reduces conciseness and makes the description less scannable.

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 has an output schema (which could explain return values) but the description does not mention what the tool returns or what the agent should expect. It lacks guidance on the subsequent step (e.g., use sap_complete_unstake) to complete the unstake flow, leaving the workflow incomplete.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'amount' (in lamports) and 'agentWallet' (base58). The description mentions these parameters but adds no new semantics beyond restating them and hinting at 'unstake timing,' which is vague. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Request unstake for an agent wallet,' specifying the verb and resource. It provides context ('SAP protocol staking flow') and distinguishes from 'external AgentKit staking protocol tools,' which differentiates it from non-SAP siblings. Among SAP siblings like 'sap_complete_unstake,' the purpose as the request step is implicit.

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 to 'Confirm agent wallet, amount, and unstake timing before writes' and distinguishes from external tools, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related SAP siblings (e.g., sap_complete_unstake), nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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