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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add the context that the read goes directly to ProtocolViewer, suggesting live source semantics, but it does not mention pagination, response shape, or any other behavioral details.

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. Every word contributes content: the action, the entity, the owner scoping, and the direct ProtocolViewer source.

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?

With no output schema and only a one-sentence description, an agent is left without return-value expectations, pagination behavior, or the meaning of raw params. The large sibling set with overlapping functions (peer_pv_intent_show, peer_indexer_intents_by_owner, peer_pv_deposit_list_owner) makes this description insufficient for confident tool selection.

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%, with owner and params already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Fetch') and names both the resource ('intents for an owner') and the source ('directly from ProtocolViewer'). This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like peer_indexer_intents_by_owner and 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as peer_indexer_intents_by_owner or peer_pv_deposit_list_owner. The phrase 'directly from ProtocolViewer' implies a source preference, but no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are stated.

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