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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior, but it only says 'get', implying a non-destructive read. It does not mention whether the response is a list, whether it includes active/resolved/expired stakes by default, or any other behavioral characteristics such as pagination or data scoping.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description should explain what a 'stake' includes and what the response format looks like. The description lacks any info about return structure, possible empty results, or how the status filter behaves, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The schema covers agent_id with a description but leaves status entirely undocumented (only an enum). The description repeats 'for an agent' but says nothing about the status parameter, its default value, or how filtering works. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 action ('get') and the specific resource ('reputation stakes') with a target ('for an agent'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_stake, resolve_stake, and get_trust_score, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as comparing with get_trust_score or viewing resolved stakes via a different tool. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the bare operation.

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