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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool builds/signs/submits the transaction and describes the cooldown period (~1 epoch) before withdrawal becomes possible. This exceeds what annotations alone convey, though it does not mention return values.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds essential information about the process, lifecycle, or alternative usage, with no waste or redundancy.

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 covers the tool's purpose, process, post-action state, and alternative workflow, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking it. Since no output schema exists, a brief mention of return value (e.g., transaction signature) would strengthen completeness, but the current description still provides adequate context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add param-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it only contextualizes the overall workflow. Thus it meets the baseline without extra semantic value.

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 'Deactivate a stake account in a single call,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_unstake_transaction by positioning itself as the recommended one-shot option.

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 explicit lifecycle guidance: use check_withdraw_ready to poll readiness, then withdraw to reclaim SOL. It also explicitly states when to use the alternative tool (create_unstake_transaction) — only if managing your own signing, making the usage context clear.

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