Submit Signed Transaction

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about retries, policy, and audit integration, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction, and it clarifies the tool's role in the SAP ecosystem.

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, no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the straightforward nature of a submission tool, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter relationship to signing. No further explanation of return values is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by linking the 'signedTransaction' parameter to the output of 'sap_sign_transaction', but does not deepen understanding of encoding, maxRetries, or skipPreflight beyond the schema.

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 action ('submit'), the resource ('signed Solana transaction'), and specifies it is produced by 'sap_sign_transaction', distinguishing it from generic transaction submission 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 recommends using this tool over custom 'sendRawTransaction' scripts to keep policy, retries, and audit within SAP MCP. It implies the alternative, but does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond the sibling context.

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