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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds only narrow scoping ('for an intent') and does not explain side effects, return behavior, or how routing inputs are derived, though this is partially acceptable given the annotations.

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 or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it omits enough context that it does not quite earn a 5.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the required intentHash is inferable from the schema and 'for an intent.' However, 'fulfill routing inputs' is never explained, there is no output schema, and no indication of what the returned inspection data looks like, so an agent may be unsure what the tool actually returns.

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%: intentHash is documented as 'Intent hash' and params as 'Optional raw JSON params merged beneath typed fields.' The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying intentHash via 'for an intent,' so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb, 'Inspect', and names a specific resource, 'fulfill routing inputs for an intent', so it is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like peer_intent_show or peer_intent_hook_pre_get, and 'fulfill routing inputs' is unexplained domain jargon.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling intent, indexer, or market tools. The readOnlyHint implies an inspection use case, but the description provides no context, alternatives, or exclusions.

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