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

The description adds a crucial behavioral detail not captured by annotations: it returns an unsigned transaction hex for signing, meaning it does not directly execute the delegation. This is significant given destructiveHint=true, as it clarifies that the destructive action is deferred to external signing.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and return behavior with zero wasted words. It efficiently achieves high information density.

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 7-parameter transaction-building tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core action and return type. It could mention prerequisites or side effects, but annotations and the detailed parameter schema fill major gaps, making it adequately complete.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself contributes no additional clarification beyond the schema, warranting the schema-heavy baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delegate'), the resource ('energy or bandwidth'), and the target ('another address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like undelegate_resource. It also mentions 'Stake 2.0' and the unsigned transaction result, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides only an implied usage context via 'Stake 2.0'. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar alternatives like freeze_balance, nor does it mention when not to use it. This is a typical implied-usage scenario.

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