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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides concrete details: default limit=50, max 200, default sort order, and retirement of legacy aliases (owner, to_address) on 2026-04-30. These go beyond what the schema states and give the agent actionable expectations about pagination, sorting, and alias handling. It omits return-value structure but covers core behavior well.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then efficiently packs defaults, filters, sort, and alias migration notes. Every sentence adds value and no space is wasted on fluff. It is easy to scan and parse.

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?

Given 12 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior well: filters, pagination bounds, default sort, and alias changes. It lacks an explicit statement of return fields or pagination cursor usage, but those are partially in the schema. The description is sufficient for a list tool with this parameter richness.

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 92% (11 of 12 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual nuance beyond the schema, such as the retirement date for legacy aliases and the default sort direction. It also hints at the precedence of `range` over `from`/`to` (though the schema also states this). This extra context nudges the score above baseline.

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 opens with 'Filtered intent list. Intent search.' which clearly identifies the resource (intents) and the action (list/search). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_intent (singular) and list_deposits by emphasizing filters specific to intents (e.g., taker, recipient, verifier, deposit_id, status). This makes the tool's niche immediately apparent.

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?

The description explains that filters are optional and an empty query returns a bounded page, providing a clear sense of when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_intent for a single intent', but the context of siblings and the focus on filtering imply the appropriate use case. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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