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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the transaction is unsigned and intended for local signing, implying it does not submit or execute on-chain actions. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description clarifies the tool's non-submitting nature. It could additionally disclose the output format (e.g., serialized transaction), but the current level 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with 'Advanced.' Every word contributes: it states the function, the target audience, and the preferred alternative. No wasted or redundant content.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should communicate the return value or behavior. The phrase 'build an unsigned withdraw transaction' implicitly indicates the output is the transaction itself, and the explicit comparison with 'withdraw' clarifies its place in the workflow. Combined with a well-described schema and sibling context, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could be slightly more explicit about what the agent receives back.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (amountSol, walletAddress, stakeAccountAddress). The description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given that the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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's function: 'Build an unsigned withdraw transaction for local signing.' It specifies the verb 'build' and the resource 'unsigned withdraw transaction', and it directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'withdraw' by noting that it is for advanced/local signing use cases.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Most agents should use the `withdraw` tool instead, which handles signing and submission automatically.' This tells agents when to use this tool vs. the alternative, and implies this is only for special local-signing workflows.

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