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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with that. It adds useful context beyond the annotations by indicating the data is indexed and that freshness metadata is included, which signals that results may not be a direct live chain read and that staleness information is part of the response.

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 that names the action, the resource domains, and the distinctive freshness metadata with no filler words. Every phrase earns its place and the most important identifying traits appear early.

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 two-parameter tool with one required field, the description conveys the core state categories and the notable freshness-metadata behavior. There is no output schema, so the description could have explained the return shape in more detail, but the listed state domains are enough for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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 100%, so both parameters ('taker' and optional 'params') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the exact resource: indexed staking, authorization, claim, and risk-window state plus freshness metadata. The word 'indexed' and the list of state types clearly distinguish it from individual sibling tools like peer_stake_authorization, peer_stake_claimable, and peer_stake_risk_window.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It implies a use case through the word 'indexed' and the freshness metadata, but it never tells the agent whether to choose this over peer_stake_state or the individual stake state tools.

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