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

Annotations only declare mutability flags; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the full prepare-then-sign contract: the return shape (operation_id + signatures_needed[]), which key signs which payload format ('owner' P-256 over payload_b64, 'trading_key' EIP-712 over typed_data), a security instruction to verify each `verify` line against own records, and a 5-minute expiry before submit_operation. This is precisely the behavior an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false and is consistent with them (non-idempotent, expiring, non-destructive).

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-loaded with purpose and trigger conditions before the mechanical signing instructions; every clause carries information (return shape, key mapping, verification step, deadline). The second sentence is long and dense, but trimming it would cost critical signing guidance.

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 two-step prepare/submit flow with no output schema, the description supplies what's needed: the return fields, per-signer payload formats, a verification step, and the 5-minute window. It does not say whether funds are deducted at prepare time or whether a stale operation_id can be retried, which is a minor remaining gap for a non-idempotent tool.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented, including the pointer to get_earn → products.staking.validators. The description reinforces that amount_hype is drawn from the existing staking balance (not spot), which is a marginal addition, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delegate HYPE that is already in your staking balance") and clarifies the exact two scenarios it covers (completing a failed stake, re-delegating after undelegate), which distinguishes it from the broader stake_hype flow. It never names the sibling tools explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the 'already in your staking balance' qualifier rather than stated.

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 gives concrete triggering conditions: use this to finish a stake whose delegation didn't go through, or to re-delegate after an undelegate, and notes the operation is 'free' (no spot purchase needed). It stops short of explicitly excluding stake_hype/unstake_hype by name, leaving the agent to map the 'free / already in staking balance' cue to the right sibling.

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