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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: it discloses the two-step intent model ('prepares an unsigned transaction ... nothing happens until you sign it with geode-local-signer and submit it with geode_submit_intent'). It stops short of covering reversibility or failure behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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, front-loaded with purpose before the mechanical intent/signing detail. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description explains the actor, the intended effect, and the full signing/submission workflow, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around what happens on failure or how the replacement links to the original order.

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 baseline is 3. The description loosely references 'signer' and 'tracking' ('with new tracking information', 'for `signer`') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('issue replacement' / 'sending a replacement') and adds a role qualifier ('Seller') plus the distinguishing detail 'with new tracking information', which implicitly separates it from geode_market_issue_refund. However, it never explicitly names the sibling tools (issue_refund, deny_resolution_request) it must be distinguished from, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It identifies the actor ('Seller: resolve a reported problem') and the situation, which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names the alternatives (issue refund, deny resolution request) that a seller would pick between. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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