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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it prepares an unsigned transaction (intent) and nothing happens until signed and submitted, naming both the signing tool and submit tool. This resolves the key ambiguity of a write tool in a two-step intent model.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the workflow caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 adequately covers the intent-then-sign-then-submit lifecycle and the target account. Given rich schema descriptions, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are documented in-schema, making 3 the baseline. The description loosely summarizes the fields ('description or keywords, plus an optional https link'), which adds marginal framing but no syntax or constraint detail beyond 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 ('Add a good-deed claim to your Life and Work resume') with scope detail (description/keywords plus link). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling make_claim tools like education, expertise, and workhistory by naming the claim type.

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?

Gives clear context on when to use it and importantly describes the follow-up workflow (sign with geode-local-signer, submit with geode_submit_intent). It does not explicitly state when to prefer a different make_claim_* sibling, but the good-deed scope is unambiguous.

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