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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that the call writes to chain but only prepares an unsigned intent, that signing happens locally via geode-local-signer and submission via geode_submit_intent, and that the action is irreversible with a confirm_token round-trip. This is exactly the operational context the destructiveHint/openWorldHint 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?

Front-loaded with actor and action, then the amount semantics, then the write/sign/submit flow, then the irreversibility caveat. Four tight sentences with no filler; each one carries a distinct fact the agent needs.

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 destructive, chain-writing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the mutation lifecycle (intent, sign, submit), the confirmation requirement, and the source of funds. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that `value` is the refund drawn from the seller's own balance (the schema only says 'GEODE to send') and by explaining the confirm_token's role in the second call. Minor addition, but genuinely beyond the schema text.

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 ('resolve a reported problem by refunding the buyer') and pins the actor role ('Seller'), which separates it from buyer-side siblings and from adjacent seller actions like geode_market_issue_replacement or geode_market_deny_resolution_request. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives clear usage context (a seller responding to a reported problem) and describes the required two-step confirm workflow. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over the sibling resolution tools (replacement, deny), so it falls short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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