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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the restatement of idempotency is partly redundant. However the description adds genuinely new behavior: 'submitted' is not delivery and requires polling, plus the two named failure strings and the recovery path for each. That is real context not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the follow-up flow — good ordering with no filler. Slightly dense as a single run-on block, and the 'This is the claim' sentence is the weakest, most expendable line.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential async contract (submission != delivery), the polling follow-up, the error-string recovery path, and idempotency on retry. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly and react to results is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (signedXdr, signingRequestId) are already documented, including 'NOT a secret key'. The description reinforces the signedXdr constraint but adds no syntax, format, or size guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (submit) and resource (the signed XDR for a signing request), and contrasts with the sibling tools it hands off to (stellar_wallet_order_status, stellar_wallet_get_signing_request). An agent can tell this is the final on-chain broadcast step without opening the schema. The one weak sentence ('This is the claim: the account, trustline, USDC and XLM land in that one transaction') is vague but does not obscure the purpose.

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 routes the agent: poll stellar_wallet_order_status until completed, and on template_expired or failed re-call stellar_wallet_get_signing_request and sign the new XDR. It also states the input boundary (signed envelope only, never a secret key). Nothing about when-to-use or what to do next is left to inference.

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