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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required intentCode and a privacy guarantee that only the statement and dates are returned, never the user's e-mail, hidden limit, or other personal data. It omits behavior for unknown/expired codes, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads purpose and lifecycle states, the second covers the required input and the return/privacy contract. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly needed, yet the description still scopes the response to statement and dates. Combined with the input and privacy disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only error/not-found behavior is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single intentCode parameter is fully documented with its pattern and origin, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates that intentCode is required and must come from intent_publish_intent, adding no syntax beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (an intent's state) and enumerates the possible lifecycle states (confirmed/active/waiting/expired/withdrawn), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling mutators intent_publish_intent and intent_withdraw_intent without opening a schema.

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?

Frames usage conditionally on an intent created via intent_publish_intent and on verifying confirmation, so an agent knows this is the read/verification counterpart to publishing. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a competing tool for listing intents, so it stops short of a 5.

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