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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context about the internal status update and tracking enablement, plus the 'once per transaction' guidance that aligns with idempotency. It stops short of describing any authorization requirements or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the timing condition. Every sentence contributes: what to submit, what it does, and how often to call it.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential call context. It could be slightly richer about what happens on invalid or duplicate hashes, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces where the values come from ('from the broadcast result'), but this adds little beyond what the schema says and may slightly blur that transactionId comes from the action flow rather than the broadcast itself.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submit the on-chain transaction hash') and states the effect ('updates the transaction status internally and enables tracking'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the only adjacent read tool, get_transaction.

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?

It clearly states the timing prerequisite ('after the user has signed and broadcasted a transaction') and an invocation rule ('Call this once per transaction'). No alternatives or exclusions are needed because no sibling performs the same action, but the description does not mention what to do if the call fails.

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