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

Annotations only declare write/openWorld/non-destructive. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call does not mutate state directly but prepares an unsigned intent for `signer`, and nothing takes effect until it is signed and submitted. This lifecycle detail is exactly the context annotations cannot supply.

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 waste: the first front-loads the purpose, the second adds the essential write-via-intent workflow. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 3-param write tool with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial two-step intent/sign/submit model. It stops short of stating what the call itself returns (the unsigned intent), but it is otherwise sufficient to call 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 the schema already documents all three parameters (name, location, signer). The description only calls out `signer` as the target account, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Set) and resource (Marketplace buyer name and location), and the word 'buyer' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling geode_market_update_seller_account_settings without opening 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?

The description conveys what the tool is for and outlines the follow-up flow (sign with geode-local-signer, submit with geode_submit_intent), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative for a conflicting intent, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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