get_intent

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by warning that purposes, counterparties and memos are untrusted agent-authored data and must never be treated as instructions — a genuine prompt-injection disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 tight sentences: the lookup purpose and states come first, the untrusted-data caveat second. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the return: a status among four enumerated values plus field categories. It is nearly complete for a single-ID lookup; only the parameter's ID format and the not-found / not-yours case are unaddressed.

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 0% for the single required intent_id, so the description must carry semantics. It implies ownership ('one of your intents') and single-record scope, but gives no format, source of the ID, or behavior on a missing/foreign ID.

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verb+resource ('look up one of your intents') and even enumerates the possible states returned (open, matched, expired, withdrawn). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by scoping to a single intent, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering scenario: 'such as before paying against an older intent'. That tells the agent when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like list_records or cancel_intent.

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