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

Beyond readOnlyHint, it clarifies that the tool constructs the exact submit call, that live pause and limit validation is the agent’s responsibility, and that the wallet subsequently simulates the transaction. These details help prevent assumptions that the tool checks current staking capacity or performs the stake itself.

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 compact sentences front-load the operation and then provide the required validation and simulation workflow. There is no filler, and each clause contributes either call semantics or behavioral 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?

Together with the fully described input schema, read-only annotation, and output schema, the description supplies nearly everything needed to prepare the call correctly. The main remaining gap is that it does not identify where or how to read the pause and limit state, or how the agent should respond to adverse state.

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 already documents the wei amount, sender, Ethereum chain 1 restriction, and optional referral default. The description’s exact-value and zero-referral wording reinforces those fields but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

“Prepare the canonical Lido submit call” identifies a specific transaction-preparation operation for Lido’s native-ETH staking entry point. The exact native ETH value and referral details also distinguish it from the Lido wrap, unwrap, withdrawal-request, and withdrawal-claim siblings.

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 supplies a concrete prerequisite: the agent must read current staking pause and limit state directly, followed by wallet simulation of the prepared transaction. It does not name an alternative sibling or explicitly explain what to do when staking is paused or over the limit.

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