Submit an already-signed Snapshot vote

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, open-world. The description adds real context beyond them: this operates on a pre-existing Safe message rather than creating one, and the typical reason it is needed is a signature shortfall. It stops short of saying what happens if the message was already submitted or whether the call is safely repeatable.

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 filler, and the state that makes the tool necessary is front-loaded before the parameter instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition and input origin well. It leaves minor gaps: what a successful call returns and how it behaves on a message that was already submitted, which an agent might want before retrying.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the format and origin of safeMessageHash. The description restates that the hash comes from snapshot_vote without adding syntax, validation, or lifecycle detail, so 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?

States a specific verb (finishes/submits) and resource (a vote whose Safe message already exists), and scopes it to the incomplete-signature case. This cleanly separates it from snapshot_vote, which is where the message is originally created.

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?

Explains the trigger condition clearly: the Safe message was created earlier but not submitted, usually due to missing owner signatures. It implies snapshot_vote is the originating call and that this is the recovery path, though it never explicitly says 'do not use this to start a new vote.'

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