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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that this is a two-phase deferred write: nothing happens on-chain until the caller signs and submits. That is real value beyond the structured fields and is consistent with the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the execution caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers the deferred-signing lifecycle well. It omits any prerequisite (e.g., the bookmark or store must exist) but is otherwise complete for this simple two-param mutation.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description references `signer` but only restates what the schema already says, adding no new syntax or constraint 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 a store bookmark') and immediately clarifies the non-obvious execution model (prepares an unsigned intent). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling geode_market_bookmark_a_store without inspecting either 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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tools (geode-local-signer and geode_submit_intent) and the condition under which they are needed, which is actionable workflow guidance. It does not, however, state prerequisites or when-not-to-use this versus other market mutation tools.

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