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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it requires Authorization: Bearer <JWT> and that Rokha confirms receipt and returns the result (token/pool/links), which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior, but the annotations plus the receipt-confirmation note are adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical scope restriction ('Only for wallet-backend actions'), then the workflow step, then the auth requirement and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the workflow position, auth requirement, and return value. It could mention what happens on failure or whether the tx_hash must match the one from signet_action exactly, but the essential calling context is present.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds workflow context for request_id ('from signet_action') and tx_hash ('the 0x…64 hash of the tx you broadcast'), which reinforces but does not substantially extend the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('submit'), a resource ('signed tx'), and a clear scope ('Only for wallet-backend actions'), and it references the preceding step (signet_action) and the expected input (tx_hash). It is clear enough to distinguish from signet_action, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with signet_approve/deny/grant.

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 gives explicit context: it is only for wallet-backend actions, after signing and broadcasting the unsigned_tx from signet_action, and it requires a JWT. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow condition ('after you signed + broadcast') is a clear usage trigger.

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