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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral nuance. It adds the 'effective' resolution semantics, though it does not disclose return structure, failure modes, or how 'effective' is computed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler.

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, one-required-parameter tool this is largely sufficient, but the lack of an output schema and no mention of the return value means the agent must infer that the result is the stake owner address. A small note on the returned value would make it complete.

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%, with 'taker' documented as 'Taker address.' The description reinforces that ownership is resolved for the supplied taker but adds no details 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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a concrete resource ('effective stake owner'), and the relevant context ('backing a taker'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as peer_stake_selected_owner, but the 'effective' qualifier and taker focus make the purpose clear.

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 use when an agent needs the effective stake owner for a taker, but it does not mention when to prefer or avoid this tool versus stake-related siblings. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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