Find intents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing cost ('Free'), the shape of returned data (miner counts per intent), and the default behavior when the search filter is omitted. It stops short of describing ordering or how pagination behaves with limit, which keeps it from 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 short sentences with no waste: purpose and return content first, then cost, then default behavior. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 two-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, return content, and default behavior. The only real gap is that result ordering and the effect of limit on a large intent list are left implicit.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description only adds the no-search default behavior for 'search'. It adds nothing about 'limit' beyond the schema's max/default, so the schema still does the heavy lifting and the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search the intents (kinds of question) the network answers') and even clarifies what 'intent' means, which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It also states what each result carries ('how many miners serve each'), separating it from a plain detail lookup, though it never names the singular sibling telegraph_intent as the alternative for drilling into one intent.

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?

'Without search, lists every intent name' implies the browse-all use case versus the filtered use case, and 'Free' signals it is a cheap discovery step. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to telegraph_intent or telegraph_find_miners, leaving the agent to infer which discovery tool to pick.

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