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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned content but says nothing about how as_of_date affects the snapshot, portfolio scoping behavior, or result limits. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by usage framing; two tight sentences with little waste. The parenthetical '(SecurityDeposit, 83)' is cryptic code-like noise that doesn't earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is parameter documentation: with four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, an agent lacks guidance on filtering and date scoping.

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 all four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. 'Top largest individual deposits' hints at top_n and 'per-property breakdown' hints at property_ids, but portfolio and as_of_date are never mentioned, leaving their meaning and format unexplained.

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?

Names a specific resource (SecurityDeposit) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: total held liability, lifecycle totals (charged/received/refunded), per-property breakdown, and top deposits. No sibling tool covers deposits, so an agent can route to it 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?

Provides concrete use-case framing ('how much in deposits are we sitting on', per-property liability questions), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., a date-range caveat).

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