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

Annotations already flag this as a non-readonly, destructive, closed-world mutation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining the cooldown gate and the asymmetric post-withdrawal fates of earnings (withdrawable) versus deposits (spendable). It does not disclose failure behavior when the requested amount exceeds unlocked stake, or whether the move is reversible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the enabling condition, and no filler. The second sentence is dense to the point of being slightly cryptic ('Earnings it took come back withdrawable'), which costs a point but the compression is otherwise appropriate.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. It is still thin on what a money-moving mutation returns or how it behaves on partial/locked amounts, which an agent would need before calling it confidently.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents `amount` as USD with two decimals. The description adds nothing about whether partial withdrawals are allowed or whether amount must match an existing stake entry, 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 names a specific action and resource — returning unlocked stake from the cooldown period to the available balance — which is clearly distinct from the sibling `withdraw` and `post_stake`. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but an agent can tell what this tool moves and from where.

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?

It states two preconditions for use: staking must be enabled, and the stake must be past its cooldown. That is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit 'use X instead when…' routing to `withdraw`, `get_stake`, or `post_stake`, and no statement of what to do if the stake is still locked.

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