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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds only 'via the indexer' as provenance, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, ordering, or how expiration is determined. This is acceptable but minimal given annotation coverage.

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 with no filler. The verb and resource are immediately clear, and every word contributes to the core 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?

With no output schema, the return format is not described, and the definition does not clarify the exact meaning of 'expired' or how the 'now' and 'depositIds' parameters interact. The full parameter schema and read-only annotations reduce the burden, but the description is still thin for a domain-specific indexer tool.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the 'expired' intent context, which only indirectly relates to the 'now' parameter. Baseline 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 a specific verb, 'Fetch', and a specific resource, 'expired intents', which distinguishes it from sibling intent tools such as peer_indexer_intents_by_owner or peer_indexer_intents_by_deposit_ids. It is clear, though it does not define what 'expired' means or contrast itself with those siblings.

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 phrase 'expired intents' implies when the tool should be used, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternatives to choose from the large sibling family. It is usable but relies heavily on the tool name for context.

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