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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirement and ordering behavior ('newest first'), but does not mention side effects (likely none, as it's a read-only list), error handling, or pagination details beyond the parameters. It adds some value but is minimal.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and ordering, followed by the auth requirement. No wasted words.

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 simple listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It communicates the action, ordering, and auth. It does not explain what an 'intent' is, but that is domain knowledge. The lack of output description is acceptable since no output schema exists and 'List' implies a list return. The description meets the needs for this simple tool.

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% (limit, offset, wallet all have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource ('List intents') and adds ordering ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_intent' (single) and 'create_intent' (creation). The plural 'List' implies multiple, differentiating it from singular getters.

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 provides the prerequisite 'Auth required' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_intent' (for a single intent) or 'create_intent'. The context is implicit but not explicit enough to guide the agent on choosing between list and get operations.

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