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

Annotations provide no safety signals (all false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals that bundles are forwarded to rbuilder and fanned out to multiple relays, mentions the API key attribution requirement, and notes the returned tracking_id. This adds meaningful context about side effects and monitoring without contradicting annotations.

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 action, followed by usage context, forwarding details, API key note, analytics reference, and a tip. It is slightly verbose but each sentence contributes useful information; the tip somewhat repeats usage guidance but still adds value. Good structure overall.

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 an action tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage timing, forwarding behavior, API key requirement, and where to check submission status. It does not explicitly mention error handling or prerequisites beyond having a signed bundle, but the sibling tools provide the pipeline context. Reasonably complete for the complexity.

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%, with every parameter already described in detail (e.g., max 10 transactions, hex blockNumber, optional revertingTxHashes). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Submit a signed Ethereum bundle directly to MEV SearcherNet rbuilder for inclusion,' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze or build transactions. It unambiguously identifies the action and target, making it easy for an agent to know what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this after get_liquidation_waves or get_mev_feed to act on a liquidation opportunity,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also offers a pairing tip but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative submission tools, though siblings imply a unique role.

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