Create Pool Retirement Certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain that retirement is effectively irreversible once the epoch passes, that the certificate must still be signed and submitted, or what happens to funds/rewards after the retirement epoch. It simply restates the tool purpose and parameter list.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the entire Args block duplicates the input schema word-for-word and earns no additional agent value. The description is short, yet a third of it is redundant.

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 destructive, irreversible certificate-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining side effects, the description leaves key context unstated: whether it only writes a file or submits anything, what the output contains, and the constraints on the retirement epoch and cold key. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly without trial and error.

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%, and the description's Args block reproduces the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim, adding no new semantic detail (e.g., whether epoch is absolute or relative, expected key file format, or overwrite behavior for out_file). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a stake pool retirement certificate"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling certificate tools like cardano_stake_pool_registration_certificate. It does not, however, name any sibling or scope boundary explicitly, so the differentiation is left to the tool name rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the registration certificate or other certificate generators, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., that the pool must already be registered, that the cold signing key must correspond to a registered pool, or whether the epoch has validity constraints). The agent must infer all usage conditions.

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