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

Annotations only reveal readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the intent-based write model: it prepares an unsigned transaction for `signer`, it has no effect until signed with geode-local-signer, and it must be submitted via geode_submit_intent. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 filler, front-loaded with the purpose followed immediately by the transaction mechanism. Every clause earns its place.

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 chain-writing mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the full lifecycle (prepare → sign locally → submit) and the safety-relevant constraint that nothing happens until signing. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds meaning to `signer` by tying it to the local-signing requirement, clarifying why this address must be the caller's own account.

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 and resource with scope: 'Block an account from messaging you.' Combined with the tool name and domain, an agent can distinguish it from geode_social_block_account and from geode_messaging_unblock_account / allow_account without opening a 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 'when' is clear ('block an account from messaging you') and the description lays out the required follow-up flow. It stops short of naming the complementary tools (unblock_account, allow_account, disallow_account) or stating when not to use it, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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