get_can_withdraw_unfreeze_amount

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the Stake 2.0 scope and timestamp, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as default network handling or error conditions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 is simple, has a complete schema, and strong annotations. The description explains what the tool returns and its scope. No output schema exists, but the return concept ('amount') is clear. Minor lack of info about return format or edge cases prevents a 5.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond stating the overall purpose (withdrawable unstaked TRX amount), which is the result rather than parameter semantics. Baseline of 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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('withdrawable unstaked TRX amount'), and scopes it to an address, timestamp, and Stake 2.0. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like withdraw_expire_unfreeze and related query tools like get_available_unfreeze_count.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to check the withdrawable unstaked amount for a given address and timestamp in Stake 2.0. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the description makes the use case apparent.

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