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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond the generic phrase 'with filtering.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, filter semantics, rate limits, or anything about the shape of returned intents, so it adds minimal value beyond 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 short and front-loaded, with no fluff. However, for a seven-parameter tool with nested objects, it is under-specified; the phrase 'with filtering' is vague and does not earn its place as meaningful guidance.

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?

There is no output schema and no explanation of return values, filter behavior, or how this tool differs from the many intent-related siblings. An agent would have to infer most contextual details from parameter names alone.

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 all seven parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the generic 'with filtering' and does not explain relationships between owner, recipient, status, depositId, or the nested params object.

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 names a clear verb ('Query'), a resource ('intents'), and a source ('Peerlytics'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from several intent-related siblings such as peer_intent_list, peer_indexer_intents_by_owner, or peer_pv_intent_list_owner.

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 this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many intent-query tools, and the description does not explain what makes peer_market_intents the right choice, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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