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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authorization requirements, or potential rate limits. It adds minor context ('Powered by Fusebox SDK StakingModule') but lacks behavioral details.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence is informative and front-loaded with core functionality. The second sentence (implementation note) is slightly redundant but not wasteful. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing fields, but it does not specify the return format (e.g., array of objects), ordering, or any pagination. It is adequate but could be more complete for an agent to fully understand the expected response.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (token, APR, TVL, expiry, unstake token), which is above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states it 'Lists every staking option supported by Fuse' and specifies the fields: token, APR, TVL, expiry, and unstake token. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fuse_get_staked_tokens (which lists user's staked tokens) and fuse_smart_stake_token (which performs staking).

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 usage for viewing available staking opportunities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fuse_get_staked_tokens for personal stakes). No when-not-to-use or context for filtering is given.

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