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

Annotations already specify a write-like operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, non-destructiveness, and open-world scope. The description adds valuable context by listing the specific fields independently verified (chain, token, sender, recipient, amount, quote time, success, finality, single use) and that this happens before fulfilment, though it does not describe error handling or failure outcomes.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded, and it avoids repetition or filler. The second sentence is a dense list but remains readable; minor vagueness in 'as a lookup aid' keeps it from a perfect score.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety traits, the description gives a reasonable behavioral sketch via the verification list, but it omits failure modes, response behavior, and how the verification outcome affects fulfilment, leaving key operational details unspecified.

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 67%: order_id and access_token are documented in the schema, but transaction_hash has no description. The tool description only repeats 'transaction hash' without adding format, chain, or other semantic detail, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 clear verb (submit) and resource (transaction hash), and adds that it triggers an independent verification before fulfilment. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like check_payment or get_order_status, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Phrases like 'as a lookup aid' imply a context, but there is no condition, prerequisite, or comparison to sibling tools such as check_payment or get_order_status, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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