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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these, such as clarifying that the effective APY equals the stated APY because total_apy is already annual, and detailing the outputs (activation timing, fee reserve guidance, natural-language recommendation). This enriches understanding of what the simulation actually computes.

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose ('Project staking rewards before committing capital') followed by a detailed list of outputs. The second sentence is somewhat dense but every clause adds information. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though the enumerative list could have been simplified without losing significant meaning.

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 output schema, the description appropriately covers return values (reward projections, effective APY, activation timing, fee reserve guidance, recommendation). It also provides usage context. However, it is slightly vague on what 'fee reserve guidance' entails and does not mention edge cases or limitations. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple read-only simulation tool.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (amountSol and durationDays) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema, though it implicitly ties them to the decision of 'how much to stake and for how long.' No new semantic meaning is provided beyond schema descriptions, so the baseline 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 'Project staking rewards before committing capital', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from actual staking tools (like 'stake') by emphasizing the simulation nature and explicitly lists the outputs (reward projections, effective APY, activation timing, etc.). This makes it unmistakably a simulation/estimation tool.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this to help decide how much to stake and for how long.' This sets a clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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