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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the transaction is 'unsigned' and for 'local signing', implying no automatic submission. While annotations indicate readOnly=false, the description clarifies the output is a locally-signed transaction, but it does not fully disclose all potential side effects, such as whether the transaction is persisted or if external calls are made.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the 'Advanced' caveat and immediately follows with the core function and the recommended alternative, making it highly scannable.

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 sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, use case, and alternative. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but 'Build an unsigned unstake transaction' strongly implies a transaction object suitable for local signing, and the absence of an output schema is offset by the clarity of the description.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already includes descriptive parameter definitions for 'walletAddress' and 'stakeAccountAddress'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned unstake transaction'), clearly stating the tool's scope and distinguishing it from the sibling 'unstake' tool that handles signing and submission. It unambiguously defines the tool's function for an advanced audience.

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 tells agents when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'Most agents should use the unstake tool instead, which handles signing and submission automatically.' This provides clear usage context and a direct alternative.

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