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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the transaction is unsigned, that the payer for inner instructions is the vault PDA, and that the proposer auto-approves if eligible. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise—two sentences—with the primary purpose upfront, followed by kind-specific details. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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 description covers core functionality but lacks information about return values (no output schema), error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., existence of multisig). Given tool complexity and many siblings, more completeness would improve usability.

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 coverage is only 40%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning of parameters per kind (e.g., lamports for sol-transfer, mint+recipient+amount for token-transfer, structure of raw instructions). It adds semantic value for the key parameters.

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 it builds an unsigned propose transaction, specifies three kinds (sol-transfer, token-transfer, instructions) and their required parameters, effectively distinguishing it from related tools like propose_execute.

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?

While the description explains the kind-specific inputs, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., propose_execute or other multisig tools). The auto-approval note is helpful but does not provide usage boundaries.

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