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 a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — result visibility changes with authentication (anonymous callers see only open intents, authenticated callers also see targeted ones) — but omits ordering, pagination behavior, and what 'open' means in practice.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the auth-scoping caveat. No filler, no 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?

For a simple read-only browse tool with one trivially understood parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and the key auth-dependent behavior. The only meaningful gap is pagination/ordering behavior tied to the limit parameter.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is responsible for compensating, and it says nothing about the parameter. The schema's bounds (1-200, default 50) make it usable, but the description contributes no semantic context such as whether limit caps results per page or truncates silently.

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 (browse) and resource (intents) and clarifies the scope: open intents plus intents targeted at the caller. This clearly separates it from get_intent (single fetch) and create_intent/claim_intent (mutations), though it doesn't explicitly name the closest siblings like get_match_recommendations or search_needs.

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 explains what the browse returns but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like get_match_recommendations, search_needs, or search_offers, and states no exclusions or prerequisites beyond an implicit auth distinction.

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