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

Annotations mark this as a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the deferred-execution model: it prepares an unsigned intent for `signer`, nothing takes effect until signed locally and submitted via geode_submit_intent, and it names the payout mechanic. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the payout condition and the signing workflow. Efficient and well ordered, with only mild redundancy between "writes to the chain" and the intent explanation.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, earning condition, and the full prepare-sign-submit lifecycle, including naming the two follow-up tools. An agent has enough to invoke and complete the flow correctly.

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 adds a modest gloss on `signer` (the transaction is prepared for this account), but nothing on the id format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Endorse a paid post" gives a specific verb and resource, and the "paid" qualifier hints at the distinction from geode_social_elevate_message. It's clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly names the non-paid sibling it must be distinguished from, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 supplies a real precondition for use: your social interests must contain the post's target interests and payouts must remain, otherwise you receive nothing. That is clear context for when this tool pays off. It stops short of stating when to prefer it over the plain elevate_message sibling.

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