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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses custody (only signed bytes leave the machine), the irreversibility of any change breaking the signature, the private builder set (Flashbots, Titan, rbuilder), the explicit 'NEVER the public mempool' behavior, and the free inspect vs paid relay distinction. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence contributes information. It front-loads the main purpose and then elaborates on views, custody, and payment. While not overly verbose, the structure could benefit from brief separation of concepts; still, it is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover inputs, behaviors, and return semantics. It explains the view outputs (builder set, price, caveats; decoded tx preview), the custody model, the builders used, and even the payment endpoint. The only minor gap is a precise description of the paid relay's response payload, but overall the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for both parameters. It explains that view='info' is the default and what it returns, and that view='inspect' requires raw_tx to decode/validate and preview builders without relaying. This goes beyond the schema's terse property descriptions, clarifying usage semantics.

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 'Front-run protection for any sensitive tx' and enumerates specific use cases (puzzle/CTF/bounty claim, large approval revoke, first-touch interaction, NFT mint). It clearly states the resource (private transaction relay) and the verb (submit a signed raw transaction), distinguishing it from sibling tools dealing with boards, checkouts, and watchers.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided via the enumerated sensitive transaction types and the instruction to submit a locally-signed raw transaction. It also explains the two views (info vs inspect) and when each is appropriate (free inspection before paying). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for non-sensitive transactions or directly contrast with any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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