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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that this writes to the chain but only as an unsigned transaction (intent) for `signer`, and that nothing takes effect until external signing and submission. This is critical behavior an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false alone, and it also notes hide as an option.

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 with zero waste: the first front-loads purpose and scope, the second delivers the essential intent/signing behavior. 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 covers the key complexity (intent-based write flow) and the annotations cover the safety profile. Params are well covered by the schema. It is essentially complete, though it does not clarify that all eight params are mandatory.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description only loosely maps its field list (price, method, inventory, location) to the params without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (edit) and resource (one of your exchange listings) and enumerates the editable fields (price, method, inventory, location) plus the hide option. The scope 'one of your' implicitly separates it from geode_exchange_new_listing, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 describes the two-step intent flow (sign with geode-local-signer, submit with geode_submit_intent), which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance relative to siblings like geode_exchange_new_listing or geode_exchange_view_my_listings.

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