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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool shows the staked amount, a modest output detail, but does not describe error behavior (e.g., non-staker address) or full return shape.

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 core action. The second and third sentences add output detail and usage context, though there is slight redundancy between 'Returns staker information' and 'Use this to check...'.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description identifies the target address and the primary returned field (staked amount). It is largely complete, though it could note behavior for invalid or non-staker addresses.

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% for the single address parameter, with its description stating the thor1... format. The tool description adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Returns) and resource (TCY staker information) with a clear scope (for a specific address). It implicitly distinguishes from the list_tcy_stakers sibling by emphasizing individual scope, but does not name the alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides a direct use case: 'check an individual's TCY staking position.' This gives clear context for when to call it, but offers no exclusions or comparison to list_tcy_stakers.

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