Solentic

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, covering safety aspects. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what the simulation returns (compound interest projections, APY, timing, fee guidance, recommendation), which helps the agent understand output expectations despite no output schema.

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, dense sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Project staking rewards before committing capital') and efficiently lists all return components. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (simulation with multiple outputs) and lack of output schema, the description does well by listing all return components. However, it could be more complete by mentioning limitations (e.g., projections are estimates) or prerequisites (e.g., network state assumptions). Annotations provide good safety coverage.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain default values or interactions between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles documentation adequately.

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 ('Project staking rewards before committing capital') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_stake_transaction' (which actually commits capital) and 'get_staking_apy' (which only provides APY without projections). It uses precise verbs and identifies the unique simulation purpose.

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 states 'before committing capital,' providing clear context for when to use this tool versus actual staking tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'get_staking_apy' for simpler APY checks or when not to use it (e.g., for real-time data).

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