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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering basic write and idempotency behavior. The description adds a security note that the server never receives a private key or signs, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it omits other behavioral details such as validation rules, error handling, or the use of the idempotency key.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a brief security note. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 that the tool has two required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct the envelope, what the idempotency_key is for, or what the response will look like. The absence of differentiation from the similar 'submit_signed_action' further reduces completeness.

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 must explain parameter meaning, but it does not. It mentions 'envelope' only in passing and never explains the envelope structure or the idempotency_key parameter. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type and pattern definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit') and the object ('a caller-signed EIP-712 create envelope'), which is specific and not a tautology. It distinguishes the tool from others by mentioning 'create envelope' and the signing requirement, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'submit_signed_action'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_signed_action'. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and description alone.

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