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

Annotations declare a write (readOnlyHint=false) but the description adds the key behavioral fact that no state changes until the returned intent is signed and submitted, which the annotations do not convey. It doesn't cover failure modes or what the intent payload contains, but it discloses the critical two-step commit 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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the critical workflow constraint follows immediately. 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?

For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the resume context and the unsigned-intent commit model. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with byte limits. The description adds only 'description or keywords, plus an optional https link', which slightly conflicts with the schema marking url_link_to_see_more as required (though the schema notes empty string is allowed). 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 and resource ('Add a work-history claim to your Life and Work resume') and parenthetically names the content it accepts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like make_claim_education or make_claim_expertise that target other claim types.

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 gives a clear workflow context: it prepares an intent that must be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent, explicitly naming the follow-up tools. It does not state when to choose this claim type over the other make_claim_* siblings, but the context is well established.

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