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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes further, disclosing that it returns unsigned transactions to sign in order, that they simulate from the wallet, that a separate sign_url exists for a human owner, and that nothing is broadcast. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a 'build' tool whose safety profile is only implicit in annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, followed by return shape and the 'nothing is sent' guarantee. No redundant restatement of the title.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return payload (ordered unsigned transactions, EIP-5792 batch, sign_url) and confirming no state change. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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% with a single required 'wallet' parameter fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; 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+resource ('Send BNKR ... back to the wallet') plus the qualifying condition ('whose 48-hour wait is over'), which cleanly separates it from build_bnkr_request_unstake (starts the wait) and build_bnkr_restake. An agent can identify the operation 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?

The 48-hour-wait condition establishes clear context for when this tool is applicable, following an unstake request. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it succeeds (build_bnkr_request_unstake) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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