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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: 'broadcasts a market/delegation transaction and may consume balances/resources; not idempotent — each call re-executes'. It also discloses backend requirements (signature session and mcp-session-id) and authentication nuances. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond annotations.

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?

Every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the core action. Subsequent sentences cover side effects, idempotency, auth constraints, and usage guidance. No redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the most critical information and efficiently expands into specifics.

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 (3 parameters, nested input objects, side effects, output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, side effects, prerequisites, authentication, and usage conditions. It references the output schema implicitly and sets expectations for the result. No gaps remain.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds meaning: for 'signedTx', it states 'Must come from client-side signing; never fabricate'. For 'orderId', it clarifies 'Should be an order eligible for seller-side manual execution'. For 'paymentAddress', it says 'Optional payout/payment address override when settlement flow requires it'. This provides practical guidance beyond schema definitions.

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: 'Manually execute seller-side fulfillment of an existing order with a wallet signedTx'. It specifies the verb (execute), resource (order fulfillment), and scope (manual seller-side). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tronsave_create_order (creates orders) and tronsave_update_order (modifies order settings) by focusing on manual execution of an existing order.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use only when explicit manual sell is intended'. It provides a precondition: 'call tronsave_get_order first to verify order state before signing'. It also warns against automatic usage, implying this tool is for manual intervention only. This gives clear guidance with a concrete alternative action.

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