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

Discloses the critical two-step write flow far beyond what annotations convey: this only prepares an unsigned transaction (an intent), nothing changes until it is signed with geode-local-signer and submitted with geode_submit_intent. It also discloses the once-per-account limitation. This is exactly the kind of destructive/auth/workflow context the description should carry.

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 the purpose, with zero redundant text. The constraint and the signing workflow each earn their place.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, eligibility, and the full prepare/sign/submit lifecycle an agent must follow, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (signer, survey_id, answer_1..5 with byte limits) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 and resource ('Answer an open 5-question survey and receive its payout'), and the '5-question' qualifier implicitly separates it from take_a_survey_1 and take_a_survey_3. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the number rather than prose.

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?

Provides one real eligibility constraint ('Each account can answer a survey once'), which is useful. However, it never routes the agent between this tool and its siblings take_a_survey_1/take_a_survey_3, leaving alternative selection implied by the number alone.

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