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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency ('resubmitting returns the current deployment state') and enforces exact-byte/payer-signature constraints. It does not describe failure modes or the initial success response, but the core execution behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the mandatory constraints, and the idempotency behavior. No redundancy or filler, and the most important operational details are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites, binding to build_request, and repeated-submission behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not stating what the initial successful submission returns or how errors are surfaced, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 meaningful constraint detail beyond the schema: the transaction must be 'the exact bytes returned by build_request' and 'signed by the payer address,' which clarifies what counts as a valid transaction value.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a locally-signed transaction for execution.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by requiring 'the exact bytes returned by build_request' and 'the same requestId,' so an agent can tell it apart from build_request and get_fee_estimate.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: it must be called after build_request, with the exact returned bytes, signed by the payer, and keyed to the same requestId. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisites effectively convey the intended usage sequence.

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