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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the returned content (balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, and action guidance) and noting it returns 'human-readable state and recommended actions'—useful context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence contributes—first states the function and output, second provides an alternative and benefit. No wasted words.

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?

Given low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately describes the tool's return content and use case. It omits details like pagination or formatting, but for a list tool with these annotations, this is sufficient.

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 the single parameter walletAddress already described as 'Wallet address to check for Blueprint stake accounts'. The tool description mentions 'for a wallet' but adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'List all stake accounts delegated to Blueprint for a wallet.' It also lists the output categories (balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, action guidance) and distinguishes itself from Solana RPC alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous within the sibling set.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'instead of Solana RPC getAccountInfo or getStakeActivation', providing an alternative. It implies the context (when you need stake accounts for a wallet with human-readable state) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling tools like get_staking_summary.

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