Solentic

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what data is included (breakdown components and commission rates) and the external data source (StakeWiz API), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first explains what data is returned and its components, the second specifies the data source. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary information.

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 parameterless read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description provides good context about what data is returned and its source. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't specify the exact return format or structure, but it adequately covers the tool's purpose and data scope given its simplicity.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what data the tool returns (APY breakdown components and commission rates), which is the correct emphasis for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('Get live APY breakdown') and resource (staking APY data), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_staking_summary' or 'get_validator_info' by focusing specifically on APY components. It specifies the data source (StakeWiz API) and what's included (base staking APY, Jito MEV APY, total APY, commission rates).

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 implies usage context through 'live APY breakdown' and 'data from StakeWiz API', suggesting this is for real-time staking yield information. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_staking_summary' or provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites for usage.

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