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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the crucial non-obvious trait that this does not mutate state by itself: it prepares an unsigned intent that only takes effect after signing and submitting. It stops short of noting fee costs or that the message becomes publicly visible on-chain.

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, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded before the intent/signing mechanics. Every clause earns its place by preventing a misuse (treating the call as a completed send).

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 4-required-param write tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the intent workflow and the two sibling tools needed to complete it. It could go slightly further on what the returned intent contains or that get_intent can inspect it, but nothing essential 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 100%, and the schema already documents signer, message, order_id, and photo_or_youtube_url in detail (byte limits, hex format, URL rules). The description only echoes `signer`, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields; 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 (send a message), the resource (an order), the recipient (its seller), and the constraint (must be one of your orders). This cleanly separates it from the sibling geode_market_message_the_buyer and from the generic geode_messaging_send_private_message tools.

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 description makes the context of use explicit (messaging a seller about one of your orders) and names the required follow-up tools, geode-local-signer and geode_submit_intent, so the agent knows this is step one of a two-step flow. It does not state when to prefer this over generic private messaging, but the domain scoping is clear.

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