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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state two outcomes (seat closes, stake returns), which is useful. However, it omits other potential effects (e.g., irreversibility, penalties, or how the 'account' parameter relates to the operation). The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 a single, efficient sentence that packs the purpose and key effects into minimal words. It is not padded and gets to the point quickly, though it could front-load the parameter role slightly more.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what 'account' refers to and any prerequisites or side effects. It only covers the outcome (seat close, stake return) but omits the parameter meaning and other operational context, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 0% and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'account' at all. The schema only defines it as a string with no explanation, and the description adds zero meaning to what 'account' represents (likely the validator's account of interest). Since the description fails to clarify this, it scores at the bottom.

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 uses a specific verb ('Leave') and resource ('validator register'), clearly indicating the action of resigning from validation. It also mentions the consequences (seat closes, stake returns), which adds clarity and distinguishes it from the sibling 'register_validator' without needing to open schemas. It is not a tautology and conveys the core intent.

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 implies the context (when you want to resign as a validator) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or fallback tools. It provides a general sense of intent but leaves the agent to infer when this is appropriate.

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