Build Stake Address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the return format (bech32 stake address) but leaves a real ambiguity: it never says what happens when the optional out_file is omitted (returned inline vs written to stdout).

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact Args and Returns sections with no filler. The Args block duplicates schema text, a small redundancy, but overall it is tight and readable.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, inputs, and return type adequately. The unresolved out_file-omitted behavior and lack of any workflow context leave a meaningful gap for an agent assembling a Cardano key/address pipeline.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the Args block merely restates those descriptions verbatim. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('stake address') plus the input it derives from ('a stake verification key'), which distinguishes it from cardano_address_build and cardano_stake_address_key_gen by resource. However it never explicitly names those siblings to reinforce the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling address/key builders (cardano_address_build, cardano_stake_address_key_gen, cardano_key_generate_stake), and no prerequisites or ordering information. The agent must infer the workflow.

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