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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, consistent with "Nothing is sent." The description goes well beyond that by disclosing rewards denominated in BNKR, the 48-hour unstaking lockup, the fee model, and precisely what is returned: unsigned transactions to sign in order, an EIP-5792 batch form, and a sign_url for a human owner. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 dense paragraph with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler; every clause carries information (rewards, lockup, fee, return shape, no-send guarantee). It is slightly packed, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so well (ordered unsigned txs, batch form, sign_url, simulated, nothing sent). The only gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing, which is minor for a 2-parameter build tool.

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 parameters (wallet and amount_bnkr, including the "all" option and the 0x address pattern) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to "for the wallet" and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Stake BNKR in Bankr's own staking contract for the wallet"), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like build_bnkr_restake, build_bnkr_request_unstake, and build_bnkr_buy. An agent can tell exactly what this builds without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (staking vs. the 48-hour unstaking it mentions), and the "No Panda fee" note helps selection, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over build_bnkr_restake or build_bnkr_buy. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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