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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error conditions, rate limits, or side effects beyond what is implied by 'returns', so it meets only the baseline for a well-annotated read-only tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('Complete staking portfolio dashboard'), then a detailed list of return fields and a concrete usage example. Every sentence is informative and has no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all the key return values (liquid balance, total staked, per-account states, rewards, APY, epoch timing, recommended action) and explains when to use it. This makes the tool's purpose and results fully clear for an agent, even without more formal schema.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (walletAddress) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it gets the baseline score for high schema coverage without extra parameter detail.

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 a specific verb and resource ('get staking summary') and details the comprehensive nature of the output (liquid balance, total staked, per-account states, APY, epoch timing, recommended action). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this instead of multiple Solana RPC calls, naming the exact calls it replaces. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools, the context makes it clear this is the aggregate dashboard alternative, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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