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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the full write lifecycle: an unsigned intent is prepared, nothing executes until it is signed with geode-local-signer and submitted via geode_submit_intent. That two-phase behavior and the named follow-up tools are exactly the context an agent needs for a chain-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?

Three tight clauses ordered by importance: purpose, budget constraint, then the write-then-sign workflow. No filler; each sentence carries actionable information.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key financial constraint, and the transaction lifecycle. It leaves the confirm_token confirmation path unmentioned, which is a minor gap against an otherwise strong 88%-covered schema.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-parameter meaning: 'payout' is per respondent and 'value' is the budget that must be >= payout × max_responses. It does not explain confirm_token, which the schema alone carries, so it sits just above baseline.

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 (Create) and resource (1-question survey) with its distinguishing scope: one question that pays respondents a payout. The '1-question' framing implicitly differentiates it from the make_a_new_survey_3 and _5 siblings, so an agent can pick the right variant without opening a 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?

The precondition ('value must be at least payout × max_responses') and the post-conditions (sign, then submit) are given, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose the 1- vs 3- vs 5-question variant, nor when-not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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