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

Even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds substantial operational traits: 409 collisions with ongoing rebalance/deposit/funding-cap refill, the ambiguous timeout behavior where the backend may have accepted the update, and a rate limit of 10 calls/minute with at least 6s between calls. These failure modes and side-effect risks go well beyond what the annotation bits convey.

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 a dense, front-loaded paragraph that opens with the operation and prerequisites, then packs only high-value operational caveats into the remaining sentences. There is no filler or repeated schema content, and the length is justified by the number of real edge cases it covers.

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 12 parameters, 7 required, no output schema, and rich input-schema descriptions, the description covers all the non-obvious context an agent needs: required call sequence, 409/retry semantics, ambiguous timeout result, and rate limiting. The success response is not explicitly described, but the explicit 'check get_config afterward' guidance makes that omission non-critical.

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% and every parameter has its own detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reiterates the jwt/signature provenance and the prepare_config ordering, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names an exact action ('Submit a signed rebalancer configuration update') and immediately ties it to required artifacts (jwt from submit_auth_verify, signature over prepare_config's hashToSign). It also explicitly separates itself from prepare_config by noting it does not compute the signing hash or check the balance invariant, so an agent can correctly distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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 gives an explicit order: 'Always call prepare_config first' and states that this tool does not compute the signing hash or check the balance invariant itself. It also tells the agent what to do on a 409 (wait and retry, with a retryAfterSeconds hint) and on timeout (check get_config afterward rather than assuming it didn't happen), which is clear, actionable usage guidance.

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