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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds the non-obvious two-phase commit behavior (write is deferred until signature and submission). It omits remaining behavioral facts such as whether the bookmark is reversible or whether the intent expires, so it falls just short of full transparency.

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 filler; the action is front-loaded and the deferred-write caveat follows immediately, each sentence earning 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential lifecycle information (unsigned intent, sign, submit) so an agent knows the call alone accomplishes nothing on-chain. Minor gaps remain around cost/reversibility of the bookmark.

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% and both parameters are documented with SS58 format and signing context, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the signer's role but adds nothing about `seller` beyond what the schema already says, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 ("Bookmark a seller's store") in the first clause, which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling geode_market_remove_store_bookmark and from browsing tools like geode_market_go_to_store. An agent can select this without opening the 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?

Explicitly frames the usage context: it prepares an unsigned intent that must be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent before anything happens. That names the follow-up tools, but it does not state when NOT to use this (e.g., to un-bookmark, use remove_store_bookmark).

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