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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish the non-mutating safety profile, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with them. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond stating that the total stake is returned, such as units, return format, or aggregation caveats.

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 filler or redundant wording. It is concise and well-structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read tool with one required parameter and read-only annotations, the description is adequate to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the purpose and the target address concept, though it does not specify return units or format since no output schema is provided.

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 already documents 'owner' as 'Stake owner address' and has 100% description coverage, so the tool description adds little parameter-level meaning. The optional raw params object remains generic and undocumented beyond the schema.

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 action ('Read'), a specific resource ('total stake'), and the key qualifier ('owned by an address'). The 'stake' qualifier clearly differentiates this from generic balance tools like peer_balance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as peer_balance or the other peer_stake_* tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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