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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description correctly reconciles this by clarifying the tool only builds requests ('Nothing is sent'). It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the 48-hour wait, that the stake stops earning immediately, that transactions are simulated from the wallet, and that a sign_url is produced for a human owner. Return-format disclosure is strong; minor gap on auth/signing requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence ('stops earning now'), followed by the return format and the safety reassurance 'Nothing is sent.' 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return values (ordered unsigned transactions, EIP-5792 batch, sign_url). It covers purpose, side effects, and outputs adequately for a 2-param builder tool; only auth/signing context for the human owner is left unstated.

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 both wallet and amount_bnkr are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's phrase 'some or all of the stake' loosely signals the 'all' sentinel value, but adds little beyond what the schema already 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Start Bankr's 48-hour unstaking wait') with explicit scope ('some or all of the stake'). It cleanly distinguishes itself from siblings like build_bnkr_stake, build_bnkr_restake, and build_bnkr_withdraw by naming the exact action and its 48-hour wait mechanism.

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 usage ('start unstaking... stops earning now') but never explicitly states when to choose this over build_bnkr_withdraw or build_bnkr_restake, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing stake. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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