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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial two-phase semantics — it writes to the chain but produces an unsigned intent, and nothing takes effect until signed and submitted. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey, and nothing contradicts them.

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, zero filler, with the mutating action front-loaded and the signing-submission requirement immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the full lifecycle (prepare → sign → submit), which is the only missing piece beyond the schema and annotations. An agent can invoke it correctly without further context.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only reinforces that the intent is prepared for `signer`. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or syntax detail.

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 ('Remove an item from your cart') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like geode_market_add_item_to_cart and geode_market_update_cart_item_quantity. No ambiguity about what the tool mutates.

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?

Names the required follow-up path explicitly ('sign it with geode-local-signer and submit it with geode_submit_intent'), which tells the agent this is step one of a multi-tool workflow. It does not state when to prefer this over directly updating quantity or whether the item must already exist, but the operative workflow context is clear.

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