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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of 'live' and 'Data from StakeWiz API' adds useful context about external dependency. Yet it does not elaborate on potential latencies, failure modes, or data update frequency, leaving behavioral disclosure slightly thin.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get live APY breakdown') and then provides essential details in a structured formula. No filler or repetition.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only semantics, the description fully covers the key output components and the data source. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what this tool returns.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by breaking down what the APY consists of, which is more than just the schema's empty parameter list requires.

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 returns a 'live APY breakdown' with specific components (base staking APY + Jito MEV APY = total APY) and includes commission rates. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_staking_summary or get_validator_info by its focus on APY composition.

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 indicates the data comes from StakeWiz API and describes the output, making it clear the tool should be used when APY breakdown is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would push it to 5.

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