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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's additions (no identity/contact/terms/documents, no external outreach, FIT review requirement) are domain constraints phrased in unexplained jargon rather than operational facts like pagination, result shape, or visibility scoping. It adds words but little actionable behavioral context.

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?

It is short (two sentences) with no filler, but the front-loaded sentence is the least informative part, spending its opening on an undefined acronym (FX, FIT) instead of the operation. Brevity here comes partly from under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only source of truth about what comes back, and it never describes the result set, its scope, or its ordering. For a discovery/listing tool sitting among eighteen siblings in a compliance-sensitive domain, this leaves the agent guessing about the call's actual output.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 name promises a listing operation, but the description never says it lists network requests; instead it offers the cryptic phrase "Consent-only FX network discovery/handshake" and a list of things it does not involve. "FIT creates internal opportunities requiring existing review" reads like an outcome statement rather than a description of what this call returns, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from get_network_request or list_network_intents.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the obvious alternatives (get_network_request for a single item, list_network_intents, discover_network_intents, initiate_network_request) are named. The "consent-only" and "no external outreach" lines imply boundaries but never state the condition that selects this tool over its siblings.

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