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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive chain write, but the description goes further: it discloses that no state change occurs yet, that it only prepares an unsigned intent for `signer`, and names the two follow-up tools (geode-local-signer, geode_submit_intent) needed to complete it. This two-phase signing flow is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose then constraint then workflow. No filler, and the critical 'nothing happens until you sign it' caveat is placed prominently.

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, the description is nearly complete: safety profile via annotations, semantics via schema, and the signing workflow in prose. It does not state what the returned intent looks like, which is the only minor gap.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the signer SS58 address, the three answer fields, and survey_id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Answer) plus resource (an open 3-question survey) and outcome (receive its payout). The '3-question' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings take_a_survey_1 and take_a_survey_5 without needing to open any 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?

Adds one genuine usage constraint ('Each account can answer a survey once') and outlines the intended workflow, but never explains when to reach for this versus take_a_survey_1/5 or how to discover available surveys. Usage is implied by the name rather than explicitly routed.

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