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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that 'all actions are permanently audit-logged', which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly warn about the irreversibility of settle/refund or failure modes, though the action descriptions imply fund movement.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: role, actions, and audit logging. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers operator role, three actions, and audit logging. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin key set) and sequencing (list first to get stake_id), but these are implied or present in the schema. Overall complete for a moderately complex 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter thoroughly described (action enum with meanings, stake_id with example, admin_key source). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'manage agent stakes' with three concrete actions: list pending, settle to release funds, and refund to poster. It is specific about the resource (stakes) and the operator role, distinguishing it from siblings like market.stake or agent.cashout.

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 clear context on what each action does (list, settle, refund), enabling appropriate selection. The 'Operator:' prefix signals it is for administrative use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Minor gap in exclusion guidance.

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