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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 0.25% entry fee taken from the staked amount, daily reward payout on the delegation, the two-step owner flow (staking balance then delegate), the exact return shape (operation_id + signatures_needed[]), and the signing rules per signer type. The 5-minute submission deadline is critical context the annotations cannot express.

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 the action and fee, then the multi-step signing instructions; every clause carries operational meaning. The single dense paragraph packs several distinct concerns (sourcing, fees, steps, signing, deadline) that would be easier to scan if broken up.

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, and the description compensates by specifying the returned operation_id and signatures_needed[] plus how to interpret each signer entry. Combined with the deadline and verification instruction ('check every verify line against YOUR records'), an agent has everything needed to call it and complete the flow.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value: it explains where the validator address comes from (get_earn → products.staking.validators, neutral order) and confirms the 0.25% fee is deducted from amount_hype. No format details beyond the schema's 0x address note, which keeps it from a 5.

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 verb and resource ('Stake spot HYPE with a validator') and names the sourcing path for validators (get_earn → products.staking.validators, neutral order). This clearly separates it from siblings like delegate_hype, unstake_hype, and buy_hype, which involve different actions on the same asset.

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 concrete operational guidance: fetch validators from get_earn, then complete two owner steps and submit_operation within 5 minutes. It does not explicitly contrast with delegate_hype or unstake_hype, so the agent must infer the boundary from the verb, but the end-to-end flow is well signposted.

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