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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that the tool falls back to a configured wallet unless an explicit owner is given, but it does not clarify precedence, result scoping, pagination, or other list behavior.

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 sentence with no redundant wording and front-loads the action and resource. It wastes no tokens and is easy to parse.

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 list tool, the description covers the main owner-scoping context, and the annotations plus full schema coverage reduce the burden. However, with no output schema and a large family of intent-listing siblings, the description leaves the agent without enough context to confidently choose this tool or understand return expectations.

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?

The schema fully documents both parameters, and the description goes beyond it by clarifying that an 'explicit owner' overrides the configured-wallet default. This is useful semantic context beyond the raw 'Owner address.' schema description, although the params object is only described generically.

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 clearly states the action ('List intents') and the resource ('configured wallet or explicit owner'), making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similarly named siblings such as peer_indexer_intents_by_owner or peer_pv_intent_list_owner, so it falls short of full distinctiveness.

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 'configured wallet or explicit owner' implies the main use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also list intents by owner. No alternate tools are named and no exclusion criteria are provided.

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