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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the lifecycle state machine (pending, submitting, done, failed) and the fact that a result only exists after submission, which tells the agent what to expect when polling.

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?

One compact sentence with the read-only nature front-loaded and no wasted words, which is appropriate for a simple getter. It is efficient but minimal enough that it could absorb one clarifying clause without becoming bloated.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (status, and result once submitted). The only real gap is that the intent_id parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 single parameter intent_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden, yet it says nothing about the format, origin, or where the id comes from. Only the parameter name itself supplies meaning.

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 (read) and resource (an intent) and enumerates the possible statuses (pending, submitting, done, failed), which defines the object precisely. It does not, however, draw an explicit line against the closely related sibling geode_submit_intent, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'Read-only'.

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?

'Once submitted, its result' implies the natural workflow of calling this after geode_submit_intent, which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of geode_submit_intent or geode_agent_status as alternatives.

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