get_intent_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an important behavioral requirement: 'Requires any Floe API key (agent floe_... or developer floe_live_...).' However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'), error behavior, or response format, leaving some gaps for a simple get tool.

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 core purpose. The second sentence adds necessary authentication context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is logical: what + how + prerequisite.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the essential context: how to invoke it (with offer hash) and the API key requirement. It does not explain what 'full details' includes or error scenarios, but for a simple lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by its offer hash' aligns with the schema's parameter description but adds no additional format, constraints, or usage semantics beyond what the schema already provides for offer_hash.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full details of a specific intent by its offer hash.' The verb 'get' plus the resource 'intent details' and the identifier mechanism ('offer hash') precisely distinguish it from sibling list tools like get_open_lend_intents, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use when you need details for a specific intent identified by its offer hash. It implies differentiation from listing tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This meets the 'clear context' bar but falls short of explicit exclusions.

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