read_asset_manager_intents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by explaining the two return modes (catalog-only vs. per-account availability with blocking compatibility rules) and the dependency that position_id requires an account scoping. It does not mention rate limits or result size, 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?

Three tight sentences, catalog described first, then the two optional escalation paths, then a closing clarification of the default. No wasted words.

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 read-only 3-parameter listing tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, everything an agent needs to choose parameters and predict the response shape is present.

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 earns above baseline by explaining that account_address toggles an entirely different response mode rather than just filtering, and that position_id further narrows that mode. chain_id is left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 and resource ('List the automation intents Arcadia supports') and immediately narrows scope by noting it returns the parameters each intent accepts. This cleanly separates it from sibling read_asset_manager_current (current state) and write_account_automations (mutation) without ambiguity.

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 gives conditional usage: 'Pass account_address to also get per-account availability', 'Pass position_id as well to scope availability', and 'Without account_address this returns the catalog only.' It never names a sibling tool as the alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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