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's 'Fetch' wording is consistent with that and adds the specific resource returned, but it discloses no additional behavioral details such as error conditions or response structure.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the resource. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

This is a simple read-only fetch with one required parameter and no output schema, so a short description is largely sufficient. The gaps—such as response shape or behavior of the optional params field—are minor for this low-complexity 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 intentHash and params are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning about how the parameters should be used or formatted, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a clear verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('fulfillment amounts'), and a scope ('for an intent'). It is distinctive enough among the many peer_indexer_intents_* siblings, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from similar tools like peer_indexer_intents_fulfillment_and_payment.

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 use this tool versus related sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond requiring an intent. The intended context must be inferred from the tool name and schema.

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