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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the operation is state-changing, that the server never signs (so the signature must come from the user), and that there is no version argument because all orders use v4. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in the annotations and they align with readOnlyHint=false.

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 four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: version scope, what to relay, state-change effect, and server signing behavior. There is no filler or redundancy; the most important scoping note is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisite, inputs, state-change, and a critical server-side behavior. It omits what the response contains (e.g., order id or error conditions), which is a minor gap for an agent executing the call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description mostly repeats the schema's origin info ('quoteId + signature from prepare_order's PreparedOrder') and adds no new semantic detail beyond that. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('Relay', 'posts') with a clear resource ('an order') and explicitly distinguishes this from prepare_order by referencing 'quoteId + signature from prepare_order's PreparedOrder'. The version note ('every order runs on the v4 backend') further scopes the tool's behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 clearly establishes the prerequisite: use this after prepare_order, relaying the user's signed order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to prepare_order and the lack of other submit tools among siblings makes the intended usage obvious.

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