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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds substantive context by disclosing the composite return payload (ToU acceptance state, spending caps, pending intents), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements, but for a read-only status call that is a minor gap.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and then lists the three returned components. The 'Read-only:' prefix slightly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, but the sentence is otherwise waste-free.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does enumerate the three payload categories an agent needs to know. It stops short of describing format or detail level of those categories, which is a modest gap for a composite status tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Account address (SS58)'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about the address argument, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 a specific resource (agent status) and enumerates its components: Terms of Use acceptance, spending caps, and pending intents. This is far more informative than the bare title 'Agent status'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the adjacent geode_account_info or geode_get_intent siblings, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 states what is returned but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never mentions geode_accept_terms (the write counterpart for the Terms of Use it reports on) or geode_get_intent (which retrieves a single intent), so the agent must guess which of these to call.

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