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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the nature of the output (plain-language step-by-step narrative) and the supported locales, but says nothing about whether explanation is generated locally or via a model, whether errors are surfaced for invalid manifests, or how long/large manifests are handled.

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, zero waste: the first defines the transformation and its output shape, the second states the use case. The core action is front-loaded and the parenthetical list of explained elements is compact and informative.

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, fully schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and roughly what it returns. It could go slightly further by noting behavior on malformed manifests or the relationship to validate_transaction_manifest, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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%, with both `manifest` and `locale` (enum en/es, default en) fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of "English or Spanish" echoes the locale enum without adding syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: translating a Radix transaction manifest into a plain-language, step-by-step explanation, and enumerates the content types covered (withdrawals, deposits, proofs, component calls). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling build_*_manifest, validate_transaction_manifest, and preview_transaction tools, which construct, check, or simulate rather than explain.

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?

"Use it to help the user understand what they are about to sign" gives a concrete usage scenario and a clear trigger. It does not name alternatives (e.g., validate_transaction_manifest or preview_transaction) or state exclusions, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not guidance a 5 requires.

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