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

Annotations already declare it's not read-only, not idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds the full process: 'Builds the transaction, signs it, and submits it' and that funds are returned to the wallet. This adds context beyond annotations, though the safety profile is already well-covered, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: main action, process, prerequisite, default behavior, and sibling comparison. It's front-loaded and concise.

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?

For a one-shot withdrawal tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the action, the default, and the alternative, but doesn't mention the return type or error conditions. That's a minor gap, so 4.

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%, with each parameter well-described (e.g., secretKey 'used in-memory for signing only, never stored'). The description repeats the amountSol default ('Omit amountSol to withdraw the full balance') but doesn't add new semantics. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 states 'Withdraw SOL from a deactivated stake account in a single call,' using a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'withdraw_stake' by labeling itself the recommended tool and specifying when to use the alternative.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use check_withdraw_ready first to confirm the account is ready' and contrasts with 'withdraw_stake only if you manage your own signing,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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