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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not the sole source. It still adds real value by disclosing that the call only writes an unsigned intent and that nothing takes effect until signing and submission — critical for a write tool. Return details of the intent are implied rather than described.

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: the first states the effect, the second states the write/signing constraint. No filler, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is written, for whom, and the signing/submission path. The only omission is disambiguating against the near-identical block_account sibling.

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 both parameters (signer, disallow) are already fully documented with SS58 formats. The description only echoes `signer`; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Stop allowing an account to send you private messages,' which an agent can map cleanly to a distinct action. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling geode_messaging_block_account, which also halts messages, so the allow/disallow/block triad is left for the agent to infer.

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 supplies a clear operational context: this prepares an intent, which must be signed with geode-local-signer and then submitted with geode_submit_intent. It names the exact follow-up tools. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over block_account or allow_account.

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