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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description consistently says 'Read'. The description adds the 'authoritative' qualifier and the optional taker scope, but it does not elaborate on return behavior, what 'authoritative' means operationally, or any edge cases.

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 a clear verb, resource, and target. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.

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 state lookup with a fully described schema and safety annotations, this is nearly complete. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or any hint of what the returned StakeVault state contains, which leaves modest ambiguity about the response 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%: staker, taker, and params each already have descriptions in the input schema. The description essentially restates 'staker and optional taker' and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (read), a specific resource (authoritative StakeVault state), and a target (staker and optional taker). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the numerous peer_stake_* sibling read tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'authoritative' implies this is the canonical state source, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, and no alternative tools are named.

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