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

The description asserts '(idempotent)' while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. That is a direct conflict on the single most operationally important property of a mutation tool, and an agent cannot tell whether retrying a call is safe. No other behavioral context (permissions, failure on wrong state, side effects) is supplied.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and state transition, followed by the one non-obvious parameter's meaning. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read/write and destructive profile. However, for a state-mutating tool the description leaves the retry semantics contradictory and never states the behavior when the bond is not POSTED, which is essential context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does explain funding_ref meaningfully — the payment rail transaction that funded the stake — but says nothing about bond_id beyond its obvious name, and does not state whether funding_ref is optional or what an empty default implies.

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 names a specific state transition on a specific resource — 'Mark a POSTED bond ACTIVE' — including the precondition state, which separates it from post_bond, release_bond, and slash_bond. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the state machine rather than stated.

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 'POSTED' precondition implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement about what happens if the bond is in another state, and no routing to alternatives such as release_bond or bond_status. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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