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

Annotations give readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, but the description adds substantial non-obvious context: this only prepares an unsigned intent for `signer` and is a no-op until signed and submitted. That two-phase lifecycle is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting irreversibility/on-chain finality of an endorsement.

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 filler, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical lifecycle constraint. 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?

With only two fully documented parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does and the sign/submit handoff that must follow. Nothing material is missing.

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 both `signer` (SS58 address, signed locally) and `claim_id` (0x 32-byte hex) are already documented in the schema. The description references `signer` but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; 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+resource: 'Endorse another account's Life and Work claim.' The 'another account's' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling make_claim_* tools, and it is clearly a distinct action from get_endorsers (which reads endorsement data).

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?

Explicitly describes the required follow-up workflow: the intent must be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent, otherwise 'nothing happens'. This is strong operational guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not/don't-use condition, so it falls just short of 5.

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