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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond by disclosing the crucial intent-based two-phase behavior: nothing executes until the returned unsigned transaction is signed and submitted, and it names the exact sibling tools required. That is high-value behavioral context not present in 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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the workflow immediately following. No filler, every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the main gaps are minor: it doesn't state membership prerequisites (must currently be in the group) or what happens to prior messages on leaving. For a transaction-preparation tool it is otherwise complete.

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, group_id_to_leave) are already fully documented. The description only echoes the role of `signer` and adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 and resource ('Leave a messaging group'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like geode_messaging_join_a_group and geode_messaging_make_a_new_group. An agent can select it without opening the 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 description clearly explains the required downstream flow — prepare intent, sign with geode-local-signer, submit with geode_submit_intent — which tells the agent how and in what context to use it. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives (e.g., leave vs delete-all-messages-to-group), so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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