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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the state is reported by the holding portal, and results come from that portal's own aggregation and may be incomplete.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loading what the tool returns and then adding the important incompleteness caveat. Every clause contributes either purpose, source, or reliability context.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return fields. It supplies the key caveat that results may be incomplete, though it could say more about operational limits or error conditions.

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%, and the schema already explains that intentCode is the value returned by intent_publish_intent. The description reinforces the connection to intent_publish_intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it returns the state of an intent published with intent_publish_intent. It also names the source portal, which distinguishes this lookup tool from siblings like intent_list_matches, intent_publish_intent, and intent_withdraw_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 clearly ties usage to intents previously published via intent_publish_intent, implying this is the follow-up status check. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative siblings, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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