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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. However, beyond naming the indexer as the source, it adds no behavioral context such as response shape, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 one front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object and no filler. 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?

For a simple read-only fetch with one required parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema and many closely related intent/indexer siblings, the description leaves ambiguity about return value and when this tool should be preferred over peer_intent_show or peer_indexer_intents_by_owner.

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%, with intentHash described as 'Intent hash.' and params described as optional raw JSON merged beneath typed fields. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('a single intent via the indexer'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling lookups such as peer_intent_show or peer_indexer_intents_by_owner, but the 'single intent' phrasing carries the main selection signal.

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 the indexer-backed fetch versus alternatives like peer_intent_show, peer_indexer_intents_by_owner, or peer_market_explorer_intent. 'Fetch a single intent' implies a by-hash lookup, but no conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives are given.

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