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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: bids are sealed (you never see others' bids), and it lists the exact fields returned (scope, output_schema, acceptance block, budget_ceiling_pence, deadline_at, bid_window_closes_at, my_bid). It does not cover auth or rate limits, but with annotations, a 4 is justified.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then provides necessary return-field details. It uses a compact field list rather than verbose sentences. No wasted words, though the field enumeration is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values; it does by listing the fields each intent carries. It also states the scoping constraints (categories with active listing, settlement currency, bid window) and pagination/filtering. For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, this is complete enough.

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 fully documents limit, cursor, and category with descriptions and constraints. The description only says 'Filter by category; page with cursor,' which adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb (list) and resource (open intents) and scopes it to the seller side (respond_quote), categories with an active listing, and settlement currency. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like intents_bid (place a bid) and intents_post (post an intent).

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 description identifies the seller-side context (respond_quote) and says the tool lists intents you can bid on, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool for bidding or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full when/when-not guidance.

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