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

Annotations provide only a title with no safety hints, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals two important side effects: a governed thread is opened and the stake is held pending operator settlement. It does not discuss reversibility or settlement details, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences place the action first and the consequences after, with no filler or redundant detail. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description is not required to explain return values. It covers purpose, side effects, and the held-stake condition, while parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is reasonably complete, though settlement specifics are sparse.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including amount semantics and the source of post_id. The description adds little unique parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Place') and names a specific resource ('commitment stake on a KA§§A post'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like market.browse, market.post, and market.message by mentioning the governed thread and operator settlement.

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 context implies this tool is used for staking on posts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative comparison. The post_id parameter references civitae_browse, giving a weak usage hint, but the description itself does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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