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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial value by detailing the output (daily/monthly/annual/total rewards, effective APY, activation timing, fee reserve guidance, recommendation) and clarifying a subtle aspect: effective APY equals stated APY because total_apy is already annual. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 pack a wealth of information: what the tool does, what it returns, an important APY clarification, and a use case. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core 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 enumerating return types (reward projections, effective APY, activation timing, fee guidance, recommendation). Parameters are simple and fully documented. The tool's complexity is well covered for an agent to decide invoke it.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (amountSol, durationDays). The description's reference to 'how much to stake and for how long' echoes the schema but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Project staking rewards before committing capital.' It uses a specific verb (project) and resource (staking rewards), and distinguishes itself from siblings like stake/unstake by focusing on pre-commitment simulation. This is a distinct purpose from other tools like get_staking_apy or get_staking_summary.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to help decide how much to stake and for how long.' It provides clear context for decision-making but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list makes those alternatives evident.

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