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

With minimal annotations (only non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive flags), the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the RFC 9421 signature requirement, the identity assertion ('never the request'), and enumerates specific failure conditions (principalId mismatch, retired card, low verification tier), providing rich 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?

The description is a compact three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary action, then adds essential security and failure context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, identity model, and failure modes comprehensively. It omits return value details, but given the clear two-step HTTP equivalence, an agent can reasonably infer the response shape. The coverage is strong, though not exhaustive.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the acting principal is derived from the verified key, never the request, which clarifies the critical principalId constraint beyond the schema's note. This elevates it above baseline.

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 opens with 'Creates and publishes an intent to the Mixer4AI network on behalf of the calling agent,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_published_intents. The equivalence to 'POST /intents followed by POST /intents/{id}/publish' further reinforces the exact action.

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 clear context by explaining the signature requirement and that the acting principal comes from the verified key, not the request. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, the intended use case (create and publish an intent) is unambiguous and well-contextualized, justifying a score above average.

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