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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the transaction is unsigned and intended for local signing. This explains why readOnlyHint is false (it creates a transaction) but also that it does not submit or affect state immediately, which is not directly inferable from annotations. The gap is minor—it doesn't detail what happens after signing, but the core behavior is clear.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, the second gives the primary alternative, and the third clarifies the target user. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds new information.

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 complexity (advanced, manual signing) and the presence of strong annotations and a complete schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, who should use it, and how it differs from the standard `stake` path. The lack of an output schema is not an issue because the unsigned transaction is a local artifact, not a return value to be documented.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for both `amountSol` (including min amount for rent exemption and max) and `walletAddress` (base58 public key). The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 function: 'Build an unsigned stake transaction for local signing.' This is a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned stake transaction') that directly distinguishes it from the sibling `stake` tool, which handles signing and submission. The term 'Advanced' further signals a specialized use case.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Most agents should use the `stake` tool instead, which handles signing and submission automatically. This tool is for agents that manage their own signing infrastructure.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus the primary alternative and identifies the target audience.

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