Isto Intents Registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: only servers whose last automated check passed are returned, results carry no preference order, and the underlying data source is disclosed. Rate limits, auth requirements, and error behavior remain unstated, so not a 5.

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 definition is front-loaded with what is returned and under what filter conditions, then adds usage and provenance. The first sentence is dense but each clause is informative. The provenance/license sentence is useful context, though slightly less essential for tool invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, though it does summarize useful fields. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers filters, result ordering behavior, and next-step usage. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the schema already documents country, category, and optional language with formats and examples. The description restates the filtering semantics (serve the given country and category, and language if given) but adds no syntax, constraints, or edge cases beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: it returns Isto Intents intent servers that passed the last automated check and serve a given country/category (and optional language). It also enumerates the returned fields, so the agent can distinguish this tool's output from a generic registry lookup. No sibling differentiation is needed because no siblings exist.

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?

It gives clear usage context: if several servers fit, let the user choose, and connect to a returned URL to publish the user's intent there. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but with no sibling tools the main usage guidance is how to act on the results, which is covered.

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