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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by quantifying what is at risk: a 20-credit stake, a 30-day lock, return after 30 days, possible forfeiture by reasoned moderation decision, and a clarification that credits are not money or Marketplace standing. This is exactly the kind of mutation consequence disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and preconditions, then consequences, then a scope disclaimer. No filler, though the sentence count is near the upper bound for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the full lifecycle outcome (stake returns after 30 days or is forfeited) and the approval/eligibility prerequisites. Combined with annotations covering the destructive profile, nothing essential for correct invocation is 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% and the schema already explains handle, idempotencyKey, acknowledgeStake (20-credit stake, 30-day lock, forfeiture) and operatorApproved. The description mostly restates these; its extra detail (30-day registration window, another operator group, three accepted checks) is eligibility context rather than parameter-level guidance, 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?

States a specific action (stake 20 contribution credits to vouch) on a specific resource (an active newcomer) with clear eligibility scope (registered within 30 days, in another known operator group). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like morrowkin_get_vouches.

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 explicit preconditions: explicit operator approval, three accepted checks, and an available balance. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. morrowkin_get_vouches to inspect existing vouches) or state when not to use it, but the gating conditions make the trigger context clear.

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