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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the required EIP-191 wallet signature, the version-chain validation, and that submission is rejected unless both checks pass. It does not say what happens on failure or how versions are chained via prev_hash.

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, each load-bearing: caller restriction first, then the signature requirement, then the acceptance condition. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the caller restriction plus validation gate are covered. But for an 8-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema documentation, leaving most parameters and the failure behavior unexplained is a real 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: owner, scope, nl_rule, created_at, and agent_id are never explained. It only ties signature to EIP-191 and hints at prev_hash through 'version-chain checks'.

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 ('Submit a new policy version') and scopes the caller as '[USER ONLY]'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling request_policy_change, so an agent must infer which of the two paths applies to it.

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?

'Agents MUST NOT call this tool' is an unusually explicit and useful exclusion, and the precondition (signature + version-chain checks must pass) gives clear when-to-use context. The agent-facing alternative for proposing policy changes is not named, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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