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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish this as a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds that the returned state is 'full' and covers 'any class', which is useful context about result completeness, but it omits visibility/permission scoping and what happens on a missing or unauthorized intent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first, the scope parenthetical where it belongs, and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description does the essential work and hints at the return shape ('full intent state, any class'). Only error and access-condition behavior are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single required field. Saying 'by UUID' confirms the identifier type and that the intent's own ID is expected, but it adds little beyond the schema's format: uuid declaration and says nothing about class-scoped lookups.

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 verb and resource ('Read full intent state') plus its scope ('any class') and lookup key ('by UUID'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, discover_intents, which is a search rather than a lookup by ID.

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?

'by UUID' implies the precondition that the caller already holds an intent ID, which implicitly separates it from search-style siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over discover_intents, and no mention of behavior when the ID is unknown.

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