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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description contributes no additional behavioral context. It simply restates the fact that this is a read operation and does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or scope limitations beyond what the annotations provide.

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, direct sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the stated purpose, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 getter with one required parameter, the schema and annotations cover the essentials. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what a 'pre-intent hook' is or what the returned value represents, leaving a moderate gap for an agent expected to use the result correctly.

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%, and depositId is documented as 'Deposit ID,' so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about how depositId relates to the hook beyond the word 'deposit,' which is already obvious from the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the pre-intent hook for a deposit'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself among the many peer_* sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough that the purpose is not vague.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as peer_deposit_show, peer_intent_show, or peer_intent_fulfill_inputs. The description leaves all usage-selection inference to the agent.

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