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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the two-phase write path: it prepares an unsigned intent for `signer`, nothing happens until the agent signs with geode-local-signer and submits via geode_submit_intent. That workflow disclosure is exactly what an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste: the channel and its reach are front-loaded, the fee constraint follows, and the write/sign/submit workflow closes it out.

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 6-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the destination, the fee economics, and the intent/sign/submit lifecycle. It does not explain the confirm_token two-step confirmation (that lives only in the schema), leaving a small gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for `value` that the schema does not: it must be at least the recipient's inbox fee and higher amounts rank higher. Other params are left to 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 and resource (send a message to a paid inbox) and immediately distinguishes the channel with '(reaches accounts that have not allowed you),' which separates it from geode_messaging_send_private_message without opening either 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 parenthetical about reaching accounts that have not allowed you implies when this tool is the right choice, and it points to geode_messaging_get_account_settings_data for the fee that governs the call. It stops short of naming the alternative send tool explicitly or stating exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.

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