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

The description's 'Read' aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, but it adds no behavioral detail beyond them. It does not disclose what the minimum lock window represents, its units, return behavior, or any edge cases, making it minimally transparent.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant repetition. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 with one required parameter, the description conveys the basic operation, but because there is no output schema, it leaves the return value semantics unclear. It also does not orient the agent among the many stake-related sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the paymentMethodHash parameter. The description reinforces that the parameter identifies the payment method but adds little beyond what the schema states.

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 identifies a specific read operation ('Read') and a clear resource ('minimum collateral lock window') scoped to a payment method. It is understandable and non-tautological, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related stake-lock tools among the siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like peer_stake_locked, peer_stake_free, or peer_stake_state. It implies a read use case but gives no context, alternatives, or exclusions.

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