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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'submit', with no disclosure of side effects, confirmation behavior, or auth requirements. The schema for signedTransaction includes 'Do not submit it yourself; this endpoint submits it', but this is in the parameter description, not the main description.

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 short sentences, zero wasted words. The action and critical constraint are front-loaded.

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 submission tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential vote matching but omits expected return values (e.g., transaction signature) and post-submission behavior. The schema provides some context (e.g., lastValidBlockHeight), but the description overall is minimally complete.

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 67% (vote lacks a description). The tool description adds value by advising to use the same vote value from the build, compensating for the missing schema description. However, it does not add detail for other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Submit the signed vote tx', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like solknife_multisig_approve_build (builds the vote) and solknife_multisig_execute_execute (executes after approval).

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 instruction 'Pass the same vote value used in the build' provides clear context for when to use this tool—after building the vote. It implies not to use it without a prior build step, but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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