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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing the security model: 'NEVER your secret key', 'Solentic never holds your key', zero custody, and the exact signing message format. It also explains replay protection via 'nonce must strictly increase on each update' and the lamport conversion rule, providing crucial behavioral context.

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 long but dense and well-organized: it front-loads the purpose, then covers security, processing flow, and the exact signed message. Every sentence contributes necessary detail for a security-critical signing operation; no wasted words.

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 (crypto signing, policy management) and lack of output schema, the description covers the workflow thoroughly: what triggers staking, how the signature is produced, how the callback works, and replay protection. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but these are less critical for a 'set' operation with such explicit process detail.

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%, so parameters are individually documented. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: the lamport conversion from SOL, the canonical message format that includes each parameter, and the 'strictly increase' nonce requirement. This enriches understanding beyond the schema field descriptions.

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+resource: 'Hand Solentic a standing, signature-bound policy' and clearly states the outcome: 'automatically stakes your IDLE SOL'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_staking_policy and delete_staking_policy by focusing on the 'set' action and the autopilot/staking-automation context.

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?

It describes the trigger condition ('When idle SOL above keepLiquidSol exceeds minSweepSol') and the intended workflow (sign once, Solentic builds unsigned transactions, POSTs to callbackUrl). It implies this is for setting up automated staking, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like manual stake or create_stake_transaction.

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