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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it writes to the chain, prepares an unsigned transaction, and nothing is committed until an external sign+submit flow. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the chain/intent mechanics. No filler.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described schema, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the two-step sign-and-submit flow. It stops short of explaining the resulting intent object or failure modes, but is largely complete for invocation.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with format and size constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. message/link semantics), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Post a public message on Geode Social'), clearly identifying the action. 'Public' implicitly separates it from send_paid_message_public and send_reply_public, but the description doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on 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 gives clear workflow guidance (prepare intent, sign with geode-local-signer, submit via geode_submit_intent), which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like private messaging or a public reply, leaving that to inference.

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