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

No annotations, so description must cover behavior. Mentions 'structural re-verifier pins the reassign ix(s) + fee' but lacks disclosure on failure modes, side effects, or what happens after submission.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. However, 'Structural re-verifier pin the reassign ix(s) + fee' is jargon-heavy and may confuse agents.

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?

No output schema and no annotations; description should explain return value (e.g., transaction signature) and post-submission behavior. Missing critical information for an execute tool.

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?

Both parameters have rich descriptions in the schema, explaining their origin and constraints. The signedTransaction description explicitly warns against double submission; lastValidBlockHeight explains expiry. These add significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the action: submitting a wallet-signed change-authority transaction. Differentiates from sibling tools like build and read. However, 'change-authority' could be more explicit about what authority is changed.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Implied it follows the build step, but no when-not or context provided.

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