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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the intent/signing model, that nothing takes effect until the intent is signed and submitted, the exact downstream tools, and the two-phase confirm_token confirmation flow for an irreversible action. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and precondition before the mechanics and the irreversibility warning. No filler; every sentence changes how the agent should behave.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, its side effect, the signing/submission handoff, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 semantics: it explains that the transaction is prepared for 'signer' and that confirm_token comes from the first call and gates the second, irreversible call. That clarifies the multi-call lifecycle of the parameters rather than merely restating their types.

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 ('refuse an order'), the acting role ('Seller'), and the precondition ('has not shipped yet'), plus the consequence ('the buyer is refunded in full'). This clearly separates it from siblings like geode_market_deny_resolution_request and geode_market_issue_refund without opening any 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 a clear applicability condition (order has not shipped yet, seller perspective) and routes the agent through the required follow-on tools (geode-local-signer, geode_submit_intent). It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over adjacent refund/denial tools, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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