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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description complements this by explicitly stating that re-submitting is a no-op and that the transaction must be finalized. It adds the prerequisite of source-chain finalization, which is not implied by the annotations. This is beyond the annotations, though it does not describe error handling or side effects on the destination chain.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical prerequisite and a specific edge case. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, idempotency, and split-tx handling. It omits details about the response format or error behavior, but the `format` parameter hints at response types. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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%, with rich parameter descriptions for chainId, txHash, data, and format (including examples and a pointer to the chain ID map). The description adds marginal value by calling out `data` as optional and required only for split-tx chains, which is already in the schema. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' and identifies the resource as 'confirmed spoke-chain transaction to the SODAX intent relay' with a clear goal ('delivered to the destination chain'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools, which are predominantly read-only queries or relay packet retrieval, by being the only submission tool.

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 clear usage context: the transaction must be finalized on the source chain, and it notes the no-op behavior for re-submissions. It also specifies when to include the optional `data` argument (split-tx chains). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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