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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a consolidated recommendation with the exact tool to call, and clarifies the aggregated nature (single call replacing multiple RPC calls). It does not mention any limitations, but given the read-only and idempotent annotations, the transparency is solid.

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?

Two sentences, packed with essential information, front-loaded with the core function ('complete staking portfolio dashboard'), and no filler. The structure efficiently communicates both the return contents and usage guidance.

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 is a single-call aggregation and there is no output schema, the description enumerates all key returned data (balances, states, rewards, APY, timing, recommended action). This is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect without needing further details.

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 only parameter, walletAddress, is fully described in the schema as a base58 public key. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 aggregates staking data into a single dashboard call, listing all returned elements (liquid balance, staked amount, rewards, APY, epoch timing, next action). The verb 'get' and resource 'staking summary' are specific, and the description differentiates it from sibling tools by emphasizing it replaces getBalance + getAccountInfo + getEpochInfo.

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 instructs to use this instead of multiple Solana RPC calls and names the specific alternatives it replaces. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with the more granular sibling tools, which is strong guidance for an AI agent.

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