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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the set of lifecycle states it can report and a privacy guarantee that only the statement and dates are returned, never e-mail, the hidden limit, or other personal data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the state enumeration, followed by the input requirement and the return/privacy constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter, idempotent read with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the trigger condition, the possible states, and the privacy boundary of the response. Since an output schema exists it need not enumerate return fields, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the single intentCode parameter is already documented as 'the intentCode returned by intent_publish_intent'. The description only restates that the code is required, adding no format, pattern, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (fetch the state of an intent) and enumerates the concrete states returned (confirmed/active, waiting, expired, withdrawn). It also names the sibling that creates the intent (intent_publish_intent), so an agent can place it in the lifecycle without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: check whether an intent published via intent_publish_intent has been confirmed. That is clear context for when to call it, but it never names the remaining alternatives (intent_withdraw_intent, intent_list_matches) or states when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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