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

Annotations already indicate a destructive hint, and the description adds important behavioral context: the use of the latest blockhash to avoid 'Blockhash not found' and the urgency to sign immediately. It does not contradict annotations, though it could further explain what the returned unsigned transaction contains or the need for subsequent signing/broadcasting.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences that cover chain, action, blockhash strategy, and usage guidance without any filler. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 transaction-building tool with strong schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the Solana-only scope, blockhash freshness, signing urgency, and points to transfer_preview. It does not explicitly mention the next step (e.g., sign and send via dex_tx_send_raw_transaction), but 'Sign immediately' gives enough context for workflow inference.

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 each parameter already having a detailed description (e.g., amount, mcp_token, priority_fee_micro_lamports). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, relying on the schema to define parameters. This meets the baseline for adequate parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'build fresh native SOL unsigned tx with latest blockhash'. It explicitly limits to Solana and native SOL, distinguishing it from other transaction tools. The mention of 'avoids Blockhash not found' further clarifies its unique 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Sign immediately' tells the agent to act promptly, and '→ transfer_preview for full summary first' names a sibling tool for pre-flight validation. It also scopes usage with 'Solana only', making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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