submit_signed_transaction

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the tool automatically handles continuations such as auto-vote and auto-execute. This is important behavioral context that an agent would not otherwise know. It doesn't mention potential irreversibility or failure modes, but the bar is lower because annotations already indicate a write operation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the continuation behavior is a valuable addition that 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 two-parameter tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't explain what happens after submission (e.g., success response, confirmation, error behavior), so an agent is left to guess at the return value.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (txHash and pendingTxId), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description doesn't add additional parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema fully documents each field.

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 a specific action—'Submit a signed transaction hash'—and identifies the exact resource: a pending approval-mode transaction. It also adds that continuations are handled automatically, which helps distinguish it from generic transaction tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the action and context are specific enough.

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 makes the usage context explicit: this is for a pending approval-mode transaction after signing and broadcasting a transaction hash. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is clear and it would be hard to confuse with other sibling tools.

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