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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds the semantic nuance that this reports 'available' stake for two purposes rather than raw balance, which is helpful. It does not explain how 'available' is computed or whether amounts are formatted, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, the resource is named, and both intended use cases are stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 safe annotations, the definition is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the relationship between 'available' stake and related concepts like balance, locked, or claimable amounts, which matters given the many sibling stake tools.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters: 'owner' is clearly documented as the stake owner address, and 'params' is described as optional raw JSON. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a concrete resource ('stake available for withdrawal or a new lock'), making the operation's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related sibling tools like peer_stake_balance, peer_stake_claimable, or peer_stake_locked, so the purpose is clear but not contextually distinguished.

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 when to use the tool: when checking stake that is free for withdrawal or for starting a new lock. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, such as peer_stake_balance or peer_stake_claimable.

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