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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it writes to the chain, produces only an unsigned intent, and has no effect until signed and submitted. It omits ownership/permission requirements and any error conditions, keeping it from 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 sentences with zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence carries only the essential two-step intent workflow. 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 and full schema coverage, the description supplies the crucial intent/sign/submit lifecycle and the ownership precondition. It could note what the returned intent contains or error cases, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents signer, name, and new_address with SS58 format and byte constraints. The description implies the ownership precondition ("a DNS name you own") but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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: "Point a DNS name you own at an account address." This clearly distinguishes a DNS-mapping mutation from read siblings like geode_dns_get_address and from geode_dns_register/geode_dns_transfer, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Explains the operational context clearly: it prepares an unsigned intent that must be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent. This tells the agent what to do next, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over geode_dns_register or geode_dns_transfer.

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