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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that the call creates a real public Solana Mainnet transaction, notes the current fee policy and its non-permanence, and warns against speculative/bulk/hidden use. This adds meaningful behavioral context far beyond what the annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently covers constraints, side effects, policy, and guardrails. Every sentence contributes new information, though the length is slightly more than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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?

The description covers purpose, preconditions, on-chain implications, retry behavior, and usage policy, which is strong for this tool's risk profile. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the call returns (e.g., transaction signature or proof identifier), an agent is left to infer the response shape; the linked documentation mitigates but does not fully close this gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the commitment as 'locally calculated' and by instructing the caller to reuse the exact same commitment and idempotency key on retries, reinforcing the semantics of both parameters beyond the schema's regex constraints.

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 first sentence, 'Submit one locally calculated Verifyum version 2 commitment', uses a specific verb and resource, and later clarifies it creates a real on-chain transaction. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (get_proof and verify_public_proof) by focusing on submission/anchoring rather than retrieval or verification.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('never speculatively, in bulk, or as a hidden side effect'), forbids sending raw files/hashes/manifests, and provides retry semantics. It also states the prerequisite that the caller must compute the commitment locally. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools, so it stops short of a full alternative-selection guide.

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