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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'look up' aligns with that. It adds little beyond the annotation, but it does clarify the operation is a lookup, not a mutation. No additional behavioral details (e.g., response format, rate limits) are provided, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose and key distinction without extraneous words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lookup tool with complete schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the essential input (intent hash) and distinguishes from transaction hash. With no output schema, the agent may not know the exact return shape, but the description's clarity and schema richness make this a minor gap, not a critical omission.

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%: both 'intentHash' (66-char hex string with 0x) and 'format' (enum with default) are well-described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'look up' with a clear resource ('a specific intent') and identifies the key parameter 'intent hash'. It explicitly distinguishes from a transaction hash, differentiating this from sibling tools like sodax_get_transaction, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have an intent hash, not a transaction hash. It provides an explicit exclusion ('different from transaction hash') which guides tool selection, though it does not name alternative tools directly.

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