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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: this is a two-phase chain write that only prepares an unsigned transaction (intent) for `signer`, and nothing executes until the caller signs and submits elsewhere. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs and cannot get from 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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the once-per-account constraint and the sibling reference are front-loaded, and the intent/sign/submit workflow follows. 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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: the create-once semantics and the deferred, two-step signing/submission model. An agent has everything needed to call it and understand what happens next.

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 93% with 14 required parameters, so the schema already documents field formats, byte limits, and URL constraints. The description adds only the meaning of `signer` (transaction prepared for this account). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create your Geode profile') and explicitly scopes it as once-per-account, immediately distinguishing it from the sibling geode_profile_update_your_profile which it names. An agent can select it correctly 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?

Gives the selection condition ('once per account') and directs to the alternative ('use update_your_profile afterwards'), plus the full downstream workflow: sign with geode-local-signer, submit with geode_submit_intent. Nothing about when to use this tool is left implicit.

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