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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits: Solentic never holds the user's key, it builds an UNSIGNED transaction and POSTs it to callbackUrl, amounts are in integer lamports to avoid float ambiguity, and nonce must strictly increase. These details explain side effects and security guarantees, giving the agent a complete mental model of what happens on invocation.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It starts with the core purpose, then explains the signing mechanism, the operational flow, the unit convention, and finally gives the exact canonical message. No redundant fluff; the structure leads from high-level to low-level details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (signature requirement, policy semantics, recurring behavior) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, prerequisites (signing with Ed25519), the message format, conversion rules, callback behavior, and update semantics (nonce increase). No critical gaps remain for correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning by showing the exact canonical message format, the conversion rule (round(SOL*1e9)), and the role of each parameter within that message (wallet, amounts, callbackUrl, paused, nonce). It also clarifies that nonce must increase each update and that callbackUrl receives unsigned transactions—details not fully in the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Hand Solentic a standing, signature-bound policy so it automatically stakes your IDLE SOL with Blueprint.' This uses a specific verb ('hand', meaning set), names the resource (staking policy), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_staking_policy, get_staking_policy, and stake by implying automatic recurring action.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to set up automatic staking with ongoing policy enforcement. It implies this is for recurring automation rather than one-off staking (which could be done with 'stake'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'zero custody' and 'sign once' details clarify the operational model.

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