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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description adds substantial value by explaining the write model: it writes to the chain and produces an unsigned transaction (intent) that does nothing until signed and submitted. This intent/sign/submit flow is exactly the kind of behavioral detail 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, front-loaded with purpose and then the critical transactional behavior, with no wasted words. 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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers both the input intent and the resulting artifact (an unsigned transaction). The main omission is that it does not state what the returned intent looks like or how it is consumed by geode_submit_intent, but it is otherwise complete enough to call 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 fully documents all eight parameters. The description only paraphrases the field set (offer coin, want coin, price, method, inventory, location) without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (a listing on the Geode private coin exchange) and enumerates the fields involved. This clearly distinguishes it from geode_exchange_edit_listing and geode_exchange_view_my_listings, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 explains the post-creation workflow (sign with geode-local-signer, then submit with geode_submit_intent), which is useful usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus edit_listing or browse_all_listings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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