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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, the description adds important context beyond them: it explains that it only *prepares* an unsigned intent and 'nothing happens until you sign it with geode-local-signer and submit it with geode_submit_intent'. This is genuinely useful behavioral detail (non-destructive, two-step). Doesn't mention replacing all fields or error side effects, but strong.

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 it does and a key constraint, then the transaction workflow. No waste.

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 annotations and full schema, the description covers the crucial non-obvious part: it's an intent-preparation step requiring signer and submit. It doesn't explain that all fields are required/replaces the whole service, but overall it's complete enough for correct invocation.

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 every parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the signer workflow context, which maps to the 'signer' param, but doesn't add value for the other 10 params. Baseline 3.

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: 'Update one of your services' details'. The parenthetical 'the title cannot change' clarifies scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling geode_market_update_product_details, though 'service' vs 'product' distinguishes it.

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?

Implies usage by an owner of a service, and gives a crucial workflow: prepare intent → sign → submit. But it doesn't say when to use this vs add_a_service or delete_a_service, nor prerequisites like ownership. Adequate but with gaps.

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