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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by clarifying the tool is for advanced, local-signing workflows and should be avoided by most agents. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true) and provides a cautionary framing. However, it does not discuss post-submission behavior or irreversibility, which is a minor gap given the destructive hint.

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, front-loaded with 'Advanced' and a clear purpose. Every word earns its place—no filler, direct and effective.

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 is complete for a simple one-parameter tool, clearly explaining the workflow context and alternatives. The absence of an output schema means return values are not described, but for a submit action this is a minor gap; the tool's role in the broader flow is well documented.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description ('Fully signed transaction as a base64-encoded string'). The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Submit' and the resource 'pre-signed transaction to Solana'. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly referencing the create_* flow and positioning it as an advanced alternative to one-shot 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Only needed if you used create_stake_transaction/create_unstake_transaction/withdraw_stake and signed locally') and provides a direct alternative ('Most agents should use the one-shot stake/unstake/withdraw tools instead'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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