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

Annotations only say non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the crucial flow: signature must be generated offline by geode-local-signer and the call is gated per Terms version. It doesn't say what the tool returns on success or what happens if the version already matches, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences: the precondition/gating rule first, the signing dependency second. Nothing redundant.

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 3-param write tool with full schema docs and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (offline signing, per-version gating). Minor gap: no mention of success/failure behavior or what to do if the terms version has changed.

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%; each field is documented identically in the schema (SS58 signer address, signature from the signer, ISO 8601 signed timestamp). The description restates the same information rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3.

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 action — recording a signed Terms-of-Use acceptance — with the exact precondition (once per Terms version, before first write) and the tool that produces the signature. Unambiguously distinct from every sibling tool in the list.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('required once per Terms version, before your first write') and names the prerequisite tool geode-local-signer accept_terms. No explicit exclusions or alternative paths are stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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