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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds that the operation binds the wallet as the stake wallet and that only on-curve pubkeys qualify, but it says nothing about permissions, re-linking/idempotency, or failure behavior for a state-changing call.

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, zero filler, with the operation and its prerequisite front-loaded in that order. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 three-parameter, non-destructive write with no output schema and low param coverage, the description covers purpose and the one prerequisite but omits what a successful link returns, whether re-linking overwrites an existing stake wallet, and any auth/permission expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only `session` is documented inline), so the description carries extra burden. It partially compensates by clarifying that `solanaPubkey` is a public key only and must be on-curve, but it adds nothing about `botId` or the expected session lifecycle beyond what the schema states.

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 verb-plus-resource ("Link your on-curve Solana wallet ... as the bot's stake wallet") and states the effect on bot state, so an agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like desk_check_wallet or trust_whoami. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it must be chained with, keeping it below a 5.

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?

"Needed before a Desk loan or bond" gives a concrete prerequisite that tells the agent when this call is required relative to desk_request_loan. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, so it does not reach 5.

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