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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: signing happens locally (no secret ever reaches the server) and acceptance is asynchronous, pending an event receipt. It still omits authentication requirements, failure modes, and idempotency/retry behavior for a write operation.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action (broadcast the envelope) is front-loaded. The secrets warning and pending-acceptance note each carry distinct 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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the submission-to-verification lifecycle reasonably well but leaves error handling, authentication, and response expectations unaddressed. The follow-up receipt step is alluded to but not linked to the sibling tool that performs it.

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 compensate. It clarifies that the envelope is public and must not contain a private key, which adds real meaning over the schema's untyped nested object, but it says nothing about the command payload's structure or the signature/public_key formats and length limits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: broadcasting a locally composed, signed public envelope to submit a native command. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like uain_native_state or uain_contributions, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives one hard constraint ("Never provide a private key") and implies the surrounding workflow where signing happens client-side before submission. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or that verification must follow via the receipt tool, leaving usage largely inferred.

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