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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the effect is a chain write, but it is only an unsigned intent and 'nothing happens' until signed and submitted. It could go further by noting the block is reversible (via geode_social_unblock_account).

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 action first, then the intent/sign/submit contract. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (no state change until signed) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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, the description correctly frames the return as an unsigned intent and names the follow-up tools needed to complete the operation. It stops short of describing the intent's shape or an example of the success response, but the workflow gap an agent would otherwise hit is closed.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description restates that the transaction is prepared for `signer` but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Block an account on Geode Social'), which is immediately actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical siblings geode_social_unblock_account or geode_messaging_block_account, leaving the agent to rely on naming convention alone.

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?

Provides the crucial downstream workflow: the call only prepares an unsigned intent, which must then be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted via geode_submit_intent. That is real when/how-to-use guidance, though it offers no exclusions (e.g., when blocking is preferable to messaging-level blocking or reporting).

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