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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that 'The MCP holds no keys — it only forwards,' which clarifies security behavior beyond annotations. It also mentions the return value (order UID). No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loading the action and key constraints. No extraneous words; every sentence adds essential information.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value (order UID). It covers the main inputs, pre-signing requirement, and forwarding behavior. Could be slightly more detailed on error handling, but overall adequate for a relay tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the origin of parameters (`from build_order`) and their purpose (e.g., 'EIP-712 signature over the order'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool relays a pre-signed order to the Ophis orderbook, specifying the inputs from build_order. It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_order (which constructs the order) and get_quote (which provides quotes).

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 explicitly says to pass the exact `order` object and `fullAppData` from build_order, plus the `signature` and `from`, indicating when to use this tool as the final submission step. It implies prerequisites but does not list alternatives or when-not to use.

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