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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server re-verifies the saga shape and fee per op before relaying, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error responses). The description could be more comprehensive given the absence of 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema. The description explains the core logic and server behavior, but it does not describe the return value or what the agent can expect after submission. For a tool that submits transactions, the response format (success/error) would be important context, especially with 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?

The schema already describes the parameters (75% coverage), but the description adds value by explicitly linking the parameter selection to the operation type ('op discriminates'). It clarifies that 'signedTransactions' (array) is for saga ops and 'signedTransaction' (single) for others. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Submit a CT signed tx (single-tx ops) or saga (multi-tx ops).' It specifies that the operation discriminates between single-transaction and multi-transaction (saga) operations, aligning with the sibling build tools. The purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use each parameter: for saga ops (withdraw, transfer, reclaim-orphans) supply 'signedTransactions' (an array), otherwise supply 'signedTransaction'. It also mentions server re-verification. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., the corresponding build tools) or state when this tool should be used over others, such as after building transactions.

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