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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), the description discloses the critical two-phase behavior: it writes an unsigned transaction and 'nothing happens until you sign it.' This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral trait the annotations cannot 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the deferred-signing caveat immediately after. 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the two-step intent flow and the external signing requirement. It could note what the returned intent looks like or any name-uniqueness/ownership prerequisites, but the essential invocation path is complete.

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%, so both parameters (name, signer) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that the transaction is prepared for `signer` but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Register a Geode DNS name') bound to `signer`, which is more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate from DNS siblings like geode_dns_set_address or geode_dns_transfer, so the agent must infer the distinction from the action verb.

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 gives clear workflow context: this prepares an intent that must then be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted via geode_submit_intent, explicitly naming the follow-up tool. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or how it differs from the other DNS mutation tools.

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