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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that this is a two-phase write: it writes to the chain but produces an unsigned transaction that does nothing until signed and submitted. This sequencing and the external signer requirement are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and followed by the critical write/sign workflow. No filler; 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that the result is an intent to be signed and submitted, which is the essential lifecycle information for a 13-parameter prepare-intent tool. It stops short of describing the returned intent identifier or failure modes, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 92%, so the schema already documents the field formats and constraints. The description lists the fields (title, price, category, description, inventory, media/booking links, zeno percentage) but adds little beyond the schema; its claim that the zeno percentage is 'optional' conflicts with the schema marking zeno_percent required. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a service (online or in person) in your store') and enumerates the fields being set. The 'service' framing plus 'online or in person' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling geode_market_add_a_product.

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 workflow context: it prepares an unsigned intent that must be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent. It names the downstream steps but offers no explicit exclusions or a direct comparison to add_a_product/update_service_details, so no full 5.

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