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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that this is a chain write that only PREPARES an unsigned intent, that nothing executes until signing with geode-local-signer and submitting via geode_submit_intent. That deferred-execution nuance is not derivable from the annotations.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the critical deferred-execution workflow. Nothing is wasted; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Given five fully-described params, no output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the essential integration detail (sign then submit). It could go further on return shape or the signer/submit hand-off specifics, but it is largely complete.

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 all five parameters are already fully documented, and the description adds only the clarification that the transaction is prepared for `signer`. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Reply publicly to a post') with the 'public' qualifier that separates it from private/paid messaging. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like geode_social_send_paid_message_public, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'replying to a post' framing implies the use case, and the workflow note tells the agent this is a two-step intent flow. However, no alternatives are named and there is no when-not guidance versus geode_social_send_message_public or the paid variants.

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