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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), but the description adds genuinely important context: this only prepares an unsigned intent and nothing happens until it is signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent. It omits fee/permission details, keeping it below 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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the actor and action, then the chain-writing constraint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential two-step intent workflow an agent must know. It does not describe what comes back (e.g., the intent id) or any cost, but those are minor gaps given the annotations and complete schema.

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 every parameter is already documented with format constraints in the schema. The description only alludes to 'signer' via the unsigned-transaction sentence, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource (send a message about an order), names the direction (to its buyer), and prefixes the required role ('Seller:'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the buyer-facing sibling geode_market_message_the_seller. An agent can select it without inspecting 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?

The 'Seller:' prefix and 'about an order' scoping give clear context for when this applies, and the follow-up workflow (sign then submit) is spelled out. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool a buyer would use, so it is clear-but-not-exhaustive.

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