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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the server never sends anything, that the caller pays gas, what each mode returns (two unsigned txs vs. typed data), the prerequisite balance/stock checks, and that nothing is spent until the caller sends a transaction. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a signing flow.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, and every sentence carries information (modes, pre-checks, safety). It is dense but not padded; slightly long as a single block, though nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing both return shapes (two unsigned transactions, or typed data to sign) and the follow-up step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the two modes' behavior, clarifies buyer pays gas, and notes pack_id comes from geode_upgrade_packs. The schema also carries the irreversibility warning for geode_address.

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 (builds a USDC purchase of a GEODE pack) and clarifies the exact scope: it returns unsigned transactions for the caller to sign, not a completed purchase. This cleanly distinguishes it from geode_upgrade_build and geode_upgrade_packs, which are named or implied.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent by wallet capability: mode "approve" for any wallet, mode "authorization" for wallets that can sign EIP-712 typed data, and instructs to call geode_upgrade_build afterward. It also states the precondition that Geode address, USDC, ETH, stock and limits are checked first.

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