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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it re-verifies the permit and summary before broadcasting and returns a signature on success, telling the agent this is a validated, side-effecting broadcast rather than a blind submit. It stops short of describing failure behavior or retry safety for a non-idempotent operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by verification, return value, and a safety comparison. Nothing is padded, though the trailing sibling comparison is slightly under-exploited since it does not state the actual difference.

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 destructive five-parameter tool with a nested summary object and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what is submitted, that permit/summary are re-validated, and that a signature is returned. Failure modes and retry semantics for a non-idempotent broadcast are the notable omission.

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%, including the nested summary object and the conditional unsignedTransaction case, so the schema carries parameter documentation. The description only reinforces that permit and summary are re-verified, adding modest meaning on top of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submit a signed compound transaction') and clarifies the broadcast behavior. The closing reference to submit_signed_transaction hints at the sibling relationship, but it never explicitly contrasts compound vs. single-transaction submission, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the permit is 'from prepare_compound_transaction', so the agent can infer this must follow that call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement about when to prefer this over submit_signed_transaction despite the comparison being raised.

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