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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior that this is a prepared unsigned intent requiring external signing and submission. It doesn't explicitly mention on-chain finality or reversibility, but the write-path context is strong.

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 efficient sentences: purpose first, then the critical action flow with named follow-up tools. No wasted text.

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-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral gap (intent/sign/submit). It could add what state changes on unblock or whether the intent expires, but an agent has enough to call it 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 both signer and unblock are already described in the schema with SS58 and signer semantics. The description adds little about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Unblock an account on Geode Social'), and the intent-based two-step flow distinguishes it from sibling block/unblock tools. An agent can identify it 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?

Clearly explains the usage flow: nothing happens until you sign with geode-local-signer and submit with geode_submit_intent. It names the follow-up tools explicitly, though it doesn't name the counterpart block tool or exclusions.

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