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

The annotations already communicate that this is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds some useful context beyond the schema, such as 'caller-signed' (an authentication/signing requirement) and the fact that submission targets exactly one native task. It does not disclose effects such as status changes, receipts, or failure behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Submit' and contains no filler. The long list of envelope types is somewhat dense but relevant and not wasteful. Minor structural improvement could separate the supported envelope categories for readability.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves significant gaps: an agent does not know what a successful submission returns, how to construct the envelope object, why an idempotency key is required, or how this differs from submit_signed_task. The description is too thin to guide correct invocation without further documentation.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only gestures at 'envelope' through the list of envelope types and 'native task' for task_id; it says nothing about the idempotency_key or the structure of the envelope object. This is insufficient for a required three-parameter tool with a nested object.

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 a clear verb and object: 'Submit a caller-signed ... envelope for one native task.' It communicates the resource and the action, and the list of envelope types adds precision. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling submit_signed_task, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'action' and 'task' envelopes.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_signed_task, nor any explicit exclusions. It implies usage by naming the envelope types, but an agent has no signal about which sibling should be chosen in a given situation.

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