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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires user confirmation and a checkin_token from a prior tx-checkin step, and it positions the tool as a pre-broadcast step. This is valuable additional information.

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 concise and structured: action, prerequisite, next step. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. The [write] tag is redundant with annotations but does not harm clarity. A score of 4 reflects the efficient use of space with minor redundancy.

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 description is complete for a signing tool: it explains the prerequisite (checkin_token, user confirmation), the action (sign raw unsigned transaction), and the next step (broadcast). It does not detail return values, but none are required given the flow and no output schema.

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% with all parameters documented, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions checkin_token as a requirement, but this is already in the schema. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: 'Sign a raw unsigned transaction.' It identifies the specific resource (raw unsigned transaction) and distinguishes from sibling tools like dex_tx_swap_sign_swap and dex_wallet_sign_message by noting the requirement for checkin_token from tx-checkin and the subsequent broadcast step.

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 usage context by stating that user confirmation and a checkin_token are required, and explicitly points to the next tool (dex_tx_send_raw_transaction) for broadcasting. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the workflow is clearly implied.

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