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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data is served locally and no Lido API, RPC, or indexer request is made, which tells the agent the addresses are static/fixed rather than live-queried. It could go one step further by saying the values are mainnet-only and immutable, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second immediately qualifies the network behavior. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and with zero parameters there is no input surface to explain. The remaining gap is minor: it never states the deployment is fixed to Ethereum mainnet (only the title does) or that the addresses are stable over time.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 ("Locally return") and an exact resource set (canonical Ethereum stETH, wstETH, and WithdrawalQueueERC721 addresses), which separates it from the prepare_lido_* siblings that build transactions. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the other deployment tools (get_aerodrome_deployment, get_sky_savings_deployment, get_uniswap_deployments), relying on the token names to do that work.

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?

Usage is only implied: "plus direct wallet-read guidance" hints the tool is for resolving addresses before a manual wallet interaction, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of prepare_lido_stake/wrap/withdrawal_request. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer the call context.

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