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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description goes well beyond them, disclosing the critical behavioral trait that this is a deferred write: it prepares an unsigned intent and 'nothing happens until you sign it' and submit it. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs to avoid assuming a side effect occurred.

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: purpose first, then the deferred-write mechanism and the follow-up tooling. No padding, and the most consequential information (nothing happens until signing) is not 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it does, that it only stages an intent, and which tools complete the flow. It could be slightly more complete by noting that a returned intent must be submitted (return-value shape), but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 schema already documents both signer and this_message_id fully. The description reinforces that the transaction is prepared for `signer`, adding marginal meaning over the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 ('Endorse (elevate)') and resource ('a public post'), which is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from geode_social_elevate_paid_message by scoping to a 'public post,' but never names the sibling or the boundary explicitly, so it just misses a 5.

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 gives real workflow context: sign with geode-local-signer, then submit with geode_submit_intent. That is useful next-step guidance, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like elevate_paid_message or the lifeandwork endorsement tools. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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