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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), it discloses the crucial two-step intent flow: it prepares an unsigned transaction and nothing executes until the agent signs and submits it. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a chain-writing 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the deadline constraint and then the write mechanism. Three dense sentences, 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers what the tool does, its eligibility constraint, and the full signing/submission lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the role of `signer`; it adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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+condition: 'Report that a delivered order arrived damaged.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings geode_market_report_problem_not_received and geode_market_report_problem_wrong_item 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 concrete eligibility window ('Only allowed within 24 hours of delivery') and points to the downstream tools (geode-local-signer, geode_submit_intent). It does not, however, explicitly say when to choose this over the not_received/wrong_item siblings.

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