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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the chargeback-window context but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format, staleness, or auth requirements; this is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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: verb, resource, and scoping condition all appear immediately. It is appropriately minimal for this tool's complexity.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and a straightforward purpose, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It does not explicitly describe the return value or explain how to distinguish this from similar stake-focused siblings, but those are minor gaps given the simple call shape.

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%: 'owner' is documented as a stake owner address and 'params' is documented as optional raw JSON merged beneath typed fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a precise resource: stake locked behind active chargeback windows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like peer_stake_claimable, peer_stake_free, and peer_stake_balance, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 a use case—querying stake that is locked rather than free or claimable—but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Among the many peer_stake_* siblings, an agent must infer when this tool is preferred over peer_stake_state, peer_stake_risk_window, 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.