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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses high-value behavioral facts: it writes to the chain, prepares an unsigned intent for `signer`, and nothing takes effect until signed with geode-local-signer and submitted via geode_submit_intent. This two-phase commit semantics is exactly the context an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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-loading what the tool does before the post-call workflow. Every sentence earns its place; only mild density in the second clause keeps it from a 5.

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 chain-writing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the signing/submission workflow, and the target account, while annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter detail. It is essentially complete, with only minor gaps (no return/confirmation detail after submission).

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 all three parameters fully; the baseline is 3. The description restates the fields at a high level ('description or keywords, plus an optional https link') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, and it loosely calls the link 'optional' while the schema marks it required.

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 (Add) and resource (expertise claim to a Life and Work resume), and the 'expertise' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling make_claim_education/gooddeed/intellectualproperty/workhistory tools. An agent can tell what this does and which claim type it targets without opening any 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?

The description conveys the workflow context (prepare, sign, submit) which implies when to call it, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus the other make_claim_* variants or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the claim type rather than spelled out.

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