get_intent_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about the response shape, error behavior for missing IDs, or whether access to another party's intent is restricted. 'Detailed information' is never unpacked.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions rather than being a virtue on its own.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain what 'detailed information' actually contains, and it does not. For a detail-retrieval tool with a bare one-line description, an agent cannot predict the return payload or failure modes.

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 only one parameter exists, so the schema already defines intentId. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific intent'), and the word 'specific' hints at single-item retrieval versus the get_intents sibling. However, it never names or contrasts with get_intents, so the distinction is left to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_intents, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the intentId is unknown. The agent must guess the routing rule from the name alone.

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