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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the critical, non-obvious behavior: this is a chain write that only *prepares* an unsigned transaction (intent) and has no effect until signed locally and submitted. That is exactly the 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first states the action, the second the deferred-execution mechanics and required follow-up calls. 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 2-parameter write tool with annotations but no output schema, the description supplies everything missing: write-to-chain semantics, the intent abstraction, and the sign/submit handoff. An agent can call it and complete the workflow 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% and both parameters ('follow', 'signer') are documented in the schema, including that signer is the account the transaction is prepared for. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Follow an account on Geode Social') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling geode_social_unfollow_account. The intent/transaction nature of the operation is clear without opening the 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?

Explicitly explains the two-step workflow requirement: nothing happens until you sign with geode-local-signer and submit with geode_submit_intent. This routes the agent correctly to the follow-up tools, though it does not explicitly state when to choose this over e.g. block_account.

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