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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: 'no signature' discloses the auth requirement and 'caller-dependent results' explains a behavioral nuance, though it omits return shape (no output schema) and rate/limit behavior beyond pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The pagination clause duplicates the schema's default/max text, which is minor redundancy but the only wasted content.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, auth ('no signature'), the caller nuance, and pagination. No output schema exists, so it need not describe return values; only a brief note on result ordering/shape would add anything.

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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining that `caller` is 'the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)', which is more informative than the schema's 'run the query as'; it does, however, merely repeat the offset/limit defaults already present in the schema.

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: 'List the accounts that endorsed a Life and Work claim.' The verb clearly separates it from the sibling write tool geode_lifeandwork_endorse_claim, and an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 conveys the read-only nature and the caller-dependent case, which implies when to pass `caller`, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is only implied, so a 3 is appropriate.

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