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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context such as returning per-account readiness, withdrawable epoch, estimated seconds remaining, and a plain-English state description, going 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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists return contents, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description explains return values enough for an agent to understand what to expect. It also mentions ETA, making it self-contained for decision-making.

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?

The sole parameter 'walletAddress' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra parameter details, but schema coverage is 100%, so 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('stake accounts'), clearly stating the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling 'check_stake_accounts' by directly comparing and noting it provides a direct readiness answer with ETA.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this instead of polling check_stake_accounts', with a reason (direct ready/not-ready answer and ETA). This clearly indicates when to prefer this tool over the alternative.

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