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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false/destructive=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it returns a deposit_address, specifies what to send (stake_amount of the mint plus a SOL reserve), discloses the one-pledge-per-account limit, explains withdrawal before lock vs. locked stake behavior (burn/release/deadline), and states the JWT auth requirement.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the deposit workflow, then lifecycle rules and auth. Every sentence carries information, though the lifecycle sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return value (deposit_address) and the required next call. It covers auth, pool state prerequisite, uniqueness constraint, and post-lock stake behavior, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so pool_id, payout_address, and memo are already documented in the schema. The description references deposit_address and stake_amount but adds no syntax or format detail for the actual parameters, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create your pledge in an open pool.' It also differentiates from siblings by naming the follow-up (signet_pledge_confirm) and implying the withdraw path, so an agent can tell it apart from signet_pledge_withdraw or signet_pledge_pool without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: the pool must be open, one pledge per account per pool, and you must call signet_pledge_confirm before the pool locks. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., how to find or open a pool), so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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