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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the accepted asset types but says nothing about whether the stake is locked, whether it is reversible, whether a token allowance/approval is required first (a get_token_allowance sibling exists), or what the caller gets back. For a fund-moving mutation this leaves important behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and usage detail noted elsewhere rather than being a deliberate compression of richer content.

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?

A mutation tool that moves funds with no output schema and thin annotations should do more work in the description. It omits lockup/unstake semantics, approval requirements, and any note about the resulting position, leaving the agent under-informed for a value-transferring call.

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 coverage is 100%, so poolId, staker, and amount are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'USDC or credits' marginally clarifies the unit/asset of the amount parameter, but adds no format, bound, or approval details.

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?

States a specific verb (Stake) and resource (capability investment pool) and names the accepted asset types (USDC or credits). It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent money-movement siblings such as deposit_bond, fund_escrow, or claim_pool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as funding an escrow or depositing a bond instead. An agent must infer from the name alone when staking is the right call.

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