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

Despite annotations indicating a write operation, the description adds crucial context: it's an intent-based write that requires signing with geode-local-signer and submission with geode_submit_intent, and nothing happens until then. This is significant behavioral information beyond 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 core action, then the transactional context. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the mutation nature and sibling tools, the description provides necessary context about the intent flow. It lacks explicit guidance on limits (max 50 accounts) but that's in schema. Overall complete enough for an agent to use 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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema.

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: allow accounts to send private messages. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling geode_messaging_disallow_account or geode_messaging_block_account, though the inverse is inferable.

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 explains the intent flow (sign then submit) which implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs disallow or block, nor any prerequisites.

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