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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, open-world write. The description adds substantial context beyond them: this only prepares an unsigned intent, nothing is committed until external signing and geode_submit_intent, plus the budget invariant (value >= payout × max_responses). It omits the confirm_token two-step flow that the schema hints at, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the budget constraint, then the intent lifecycle. No filler; each sentence carries 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 a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers what the action does, the cost invariant, and the required follow-up steps. The unmentioned confirm_token / irreversibility confirmation step is the one gap, though it is documented in the 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 90%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by stating the business rule tying value to payout × max_responses and clarifying payout as the per-respondent amount — semantics the schema does not express.

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 with scope: 'Create a 3-question survey that pays each respondent payout'. The '3-question' qualifier implicitly differentiates it from the make_a_new_survey_1/_5 siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Explains the completion workflow (sign with geode-local-signer, submit with geode_submit_intent), which is useful downstream context. However it gives no guidance on when to choose this 3-question variant over the 1- or 5-question siblings, leaving the primary selection decision to inference.

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