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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and open-world, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: it writes to the chain, prepares an unsigned transaction (intent) for the signer, and nothing happens until signed and submitted. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide and is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs.

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 the core action and followed by the essential workflow. No wasted words, and every sentence 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 write-intent tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what it does, that it prepares an unsigned transaction, and the required follow-up steps. The schema fully covers parameters, so nothing critical 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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions signer and the IP file hash, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (intellectual-property claim to Life and Work resume) and includes the distinguishing parameter (hash of your IP file). This differentiates it from sibling make_claim_education/expertise/gooddeed/workhistory tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 for when to use this tool: to add an IP claim to the resume. It also describes the required workflow (prepare intent, sign with geode-local-signer, submit with geode_submit_intent). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, so not a full 5.

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