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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: these are the caller's own intents, approval runs through a human_passkey, and approved intents contain signable actions. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, how stale or ordered the lifecycle states are, or what happens when no intents exist.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. The phrasing 'Your withdraw intents and their approval lifecycle' is slightly elliptical about the fact that this returns a list, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it sketches the shape (intents, lifecycle states, signable actions on approved ones) but does not enumerate statuses or fields, and it omits the read-only framing a caller would want before invoking. Adequate for a zero-parameter list tool, but with clear gaps.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing about inputs the description needs to compensate for. It adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 names a specific resource ('Your withdraw intents and their approval lifecycle') and adds the key qualifier that approved intents include signable actions, so an agent knows this is a read of withdrawal intents rather than of configurations or balances. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_withdrawals_config or prepare_withdrawal, keeping it below a 5.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to the obvious alternatives in the sibling set (prepare_withdrawal for creating an intent, get_withdrawals_config for configuration). The agent must infer the call context from the resource name alone.

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