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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that this only prepares an unsigned intent, that nothing happens until it is signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent. It does not mention the confirm_token / irreversibility confirmation flow present in the schema, which is a notable omission for a write 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds funding mechanics and the write workflow. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the value formula and payout mechanics could be slightly tighter.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, funding formula, and the intent-sign-submit lifecycle adequately. The main gap is the unexplained confirm_token/irreversible-confirmation step, which the schema includes but the description ignores.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it defines the value formula (maximum_number_of_paid_endorsers × payment_per_endorser) and explains that target_interests selects which accounts get paid on elevation. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 promoted (paid) message"), and the "promoted (paid)" qualifier distinguishes it from the plain geode_social_send_message_public sibling. An agent can identify the action 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the paid/promoted framing suggests when this is chosen over a normal message, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the many messaging/social siblings. The sign-then-submit workflow is described, but that is mechanics, not tool selection.

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