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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: data originates from Telegram channels, entries carry value/requirement/post time, and codes are highly perishable ('expire within minutes'), which tells the agent results go stale fast. It stops short of saying how staleness or missing codes are represented.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the freshness caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value structure need not be explained, and the description covers source, recency, and volatility. The only gap is the undocumented limit parameter and any note on ordering or empty-result behavior.

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?

There is one optional parameter (limit, default 10, max 30) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The parameter is simple enough that the schema type/default/bounds largely suffice, but the description adds no meaning about what the limit counts or how results are ordered.

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?

States a specific resource (newest bonus drop codes) with explicit provenance (Stake's official Telegram channels for Stake and Stake.us) and the fields returned (value, requirement, post time). No sibling tool covers bonus codes, so it is instantly distinguishable from the odds/game/verification tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'newest' and 'Codes expire within minutes' signal that this should be called for real-time code retrieval and re-called often, but the description never states when to prefer it or what to do instead. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, though the sibling set makes alternatives obvious.

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