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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the fetch semantics are safe and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only the 'multiple deposits' scope and the indexer as the source, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or response behavior.

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 no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, and it is easily scannable.

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 read-only fetch with complete parameter descriptions, the core action is clear; however, there is no output schema and no mention of return shape, status filtering behavior, or conditions under which the call should be made. This makes it minimally viable but not complete for an agent facing many similar indexer tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents depositIds, statuses, and params. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond reinforcing that depositIds is for multiple deposits.

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 operation ('fetch'), a concrete resource ('intents'), and the selection basis ('multiple deposits'), which separates it from sibling intent tools such as peer_indexer_intents_by_owner and peer_indexer_intents_show. It is immediately understandable without needing to inspect the 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling intent/deposit indexer tools, nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions. The agent is left to infer from the tool name alone which variant is appropriate.

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