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

Annotations already flag a write (readOnlyHint=false) with no destruction, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: the operation only writes an unsigned intent to the chain, and nothing takes effect until the agent signs and submits it. This deferred-execution/signing requirement is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with what gets set and immediately followed by the critical execution caveat. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers what an agent needs: which fields are set and the intent/sign/submit lifecycle. For a 7-parameter mutation tool this is complete enough 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 required parameters including byte limits and URL constraints. The description names the fields it sets (name, location, description, links) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Set') and resource ('your store's name, location, description and links'), which maps unambiguously to the seller-account-settings tool. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling geode_market_update_buyer_account_settings and from the product/service detail update tools.

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?

Explains the multi-step workflow an agent must follow: this prepares an intent, which must then be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent. It gives clear context for completion but does not state explicit exclusions or contrast with the buyer-settings sibling.

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