open_staking_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses the return format (unsigned transaction, CBOR hex) and signing requirement (client-side). However, it omits details about idempotency, lockup periods, or fees that would help agents understand side effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes the action, second clarifies the return value for signing. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no output schema exists, the description adequately compensates by specifying the CBOR hex return format. With 100% schema coverage and clear action description, it covers the essential contract, though it could note whether this requires an existing staking position or is truly net-new only.

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 has 100% description coverage (bech32 address format, smallest unit clarification for amount), establishing baseline 3. The description mentions staking INDY tokens which aligns with the amount parameter but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb (stake) + resource (INDY tokens) + scope (creating a new position). The phrase 'creating a new' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools adjust_staking_position (modification) and close_staking_position (removal).

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?

Provides implied usage context through 'creating a new' which suggests this is for initial staking vs. modifying existing positions, but does not explicitly name adjust_staking_position as the alternative for existing positions or state prerequisites like minimum stake amounts.

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