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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and meets it: it reveals the call is a read ('relays GET'), that it is metered and 'debited from the CALLING agent's own wallet', and defines the response's charged_joules/settlement fields. This goes well beyond the schema and gives agents the safety and cost implications of calling.

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?

The description is dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, inclusions, sibling workflow, and metering consequence. It front-loads the core action before the detail-heavy metering sentence, with 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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description supplies path semantics, the search-before-read workflow, return inclusions (with the output schema carrying the detailed shape), and the cost/payment behavior. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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?

The schema only declares a required string 'id' with zero description coverage, so the description must clarify it. It does: id is 'numeric' and maps to the URL path placeholder '{id}', implied by '/api/v1/deposits/{id}'. For a one-parameter tool this fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource: returns 'One resource deposit's record by numeric id' and even gives the exact REST endpoint. It further names the inclusion set ('commodities[]' and 'operators'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search tool 'deposits(commodity=...)'.

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 frames a workflow: 'Pair with deposits(commodity=...): search by commodity, then read the deposit.' It also directs cost control with 'Quote with billing_quote("/api/v1/deposits/{id}")' before a call. This is clear when-to-use guidance plus a named alternative.

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