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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It only says 'submit' without detailing what happens post-submission (e.g., confirmation, errors, side effects). It does not disclose that submitting is a mutable operation or that the transaction could fail.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is concise, but could be slightly more informative without harming brevity.

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?

With no output schema and a lack of details about the response (e.g., transaction signature, status), the description is incomplete. Users do not know what to expect after submission, such as success indicators or error handling.

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 detailed descriptions that explain their origin (from /build call), constraints (e.g., lastValidBlockHeight must be under a certain value), and instructions (e.g., 'Do not submit it yourself'). Schema coverage is 100%, and the descriptions add significant practical guidance.

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 'Submit the signed config-change proposal tx' uses a specific verb (submit) and resource (signed config-change proposal transaction). The tool name includes 'multisig_config_execute', clearly distinguishing it from sibling build and read tools.

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 implies it is used after building a signed transaction, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other execute tools. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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