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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description goes beyond them by decoding each status: underpaid means nothing credited yet, payment_held means the processor's compliance check is holding it and the user must contact support rather than pay again. That 'do not pay again' guidance is genuinely useful behavioral context, though it doesn't discuss auth or any output-side caveats.

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-loads what the tool returns before the status catalogue, and every clause is functional. The pipe-delimited status list is dense but readable and earns its space.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description uses its space for status interpretation and polling cadence instead. An agent has enough to call it and act on the result; only the token/wallet-code ambiguity leaves a small gap.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry it. It says the deposit is fetched 'by its token' and that it 'needs the wallet code', which adds some meaning but is ambiguous about whether the token is the wallet code or a deposit token — a gap the schema does not fill.

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 resource ('one deposit of the wallet') and the key that retrieves it ('by its token'), which cleanly separates it from create_deposit, create_checkout and list_topups. The retrieve verb is only implied rather than stated, and no sibling is named, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 when-to-call instruction: poll every ~30 s after sending, because crypto needs network confirmations. It also implicitly routes the agent away from re-paying on payment_held. It does not contrast itself with get_wallet or list_topups, so no explicit alternatives are given.

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