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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the source ('via the indexer') but does not disclose pagination, ordering, eventual consistency, auth needs, or what the response contains.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence: 'Fetch intents by owner via the indexer.' It contains no filler and every word contributes meaning.

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 fetch this is minimally viable: owner is required and documented, annotations signal safety, and the name plus description convey the main purpose. However, there is no output schema, and the optional statuses and raw params behavior are only vaguely handled by the schema, leaving advanced usage underspecified.

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%, so owner, params, and statuses each have at least a minimal description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the owner filter, and the descriptions for params and statuses remain vague.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Fetch intents') and states the scope ('by owner') plus the source ('via the indexer'), which helps separate it from the many peer_indexer_intents_* siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-alternatives like peer_pv_intent_list_owner or peer_indexer_intents_by_deposit_ids.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'via the indexer' provides implicit context, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are offered.

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