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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions reputation gain for correct stakers but omits critical details: whether the stake is locked, returned, or lost; what happens on incorrect stance; authentication requirements (rider_token is in schema but not mentioned); and side effects or reversibility.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key details. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured for scanning.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, state changes (e.g., AGC movement), or authentication steps, leaving the agent underinformed for a financial action.

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 low (25%: only rider_token described). The description adds context for amount (1-50 AGC range) and position (endorse/dispute), but claimId's purpose is left implicit. Overall, it partially compensates for schema gaps but does not fully clarify all parameters.

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 action: staking AGC to endorse or dispute a claim, with a specific amount range (1-50 AGC) and a reward (domain reputation). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like post_claim (create a claim) or resolve_claim (resolve a claim).

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 implies the tool is used for endorsing or disputing claims but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., transfer_credits for sending AGC). No mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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