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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description states 'FIT creates internal opportunities requiring existing review,' which implies a creation/mutation side effect. This directly contradicts the readOnly annotation. The privacy constraints are useful, but the contradiction is a serious behavioral disclosure failure for a tool whose annotations already claim read-only behavior.

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 short but poorly structured: the core purpose is obscured by jargon ('FX network discovery/handshake', 'FIT creates internal opportunities'), and the final sentence is confusing rather than informative. Brevity does not compensate for the lack of a clear front-loaded statement of what the tool does.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what a 'network intent' is, what listing entails, and what the agent can expect. Instead it leaves the core operation undefined and adds a contradictory mutation statement. The privacy constraints are the only useful context, but they are not enough to make the definition complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema and strict object constraint mean there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain, and the description appropriately does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 never states that this is a listing operation for network intents. It instead offers cryptic phrases like 'Consent-only FX network discovery/handshake' and 'FIT creates internal opportunities,' which do not clearly identify the verb+resource and do not distinguish it from siblings such as discover_network_intents or list_network_requests.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of discover_network_intents, list_network_requests, or other sibling discovery/list tools. The constraints ('No identity, contact, terms, documents or external outreach') imply safe read behavior but do not help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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