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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Show' wording is consistent with those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as not-found behavior, response shape, or any special constraints.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation and the required lookup key.

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 lookup with one required parameter, the description is minimally viable. Still, it does not explain what output to expect, how to handle missing hashes, or how this tool differs from the many other intent-show siblings, leaving selection and error handling ambiguous.

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 the schema already documents intentHash and params. The description's phrase 'by hash' reinforces intentHash's role but adds no format, source, or lookup semantics beyond 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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Show'), a resource ('a single intent'), and a selection mechanism ('by hash'). It distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings like peer_intent_list, but it does not differentiate among other show-style intent tools such as peer_indexer_intents_show or peer_pv_intent_show.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains multiple tools that show intents by hash, but the description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why an agent should prefer this one.

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