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

The description claims to 'Preview' a transaction, implying a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, the annotation readOnlyHint is false, indicating the tool might modify state. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the structured annotation, severely undermining behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement but includes a lengthy block of SAP MCP execution guidance that is repeated in the parameter descriptions. This redundancy reduces conciseness. The structure is adequate but could be tighter.

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?

While the description covers purpose and usage guidelines, it omits information about the expected output (though an output schema exists) and does not address potential limitations. The significant annotation contradiction further detracts from completeness, as the agent may be misled about whether the tool is read-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?

The input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The descriptions 'Input encoding' and 'Serialized transaction' are minimal but sufficient. The tool's main description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Preview a Solana transaction before signing or submission' and identifies it as 'the required preflight step for agent workflows'. This distinguishes it from related tools like sap_sign_transaction and sap_submit_signed_transaction.

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 when to use the tool (required preflight step), what not to do (do not create local signing scripts or read keypair files), and provides boundary conditions ('Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required'). This gives clear guidance on usage context.

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