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

With only readOnlyHint=true in the annotations, the description carries the rest of the burden and does so well, disclosing the return semantics (default rule enum values, always-allowed/always-refused exceptions, badges) and the crucial behavioral caveat that owner deposits are unaffected. It doesn't cover latency, caching, or how multi-account batches behave.

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 the core purpose and keeps the routing advice and caveat in a compact paragraph with no filler. The single dense block is longer than strictly necessary but each 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields (default rule, exceptions, badges) is exactly what the agent needs. Combined with the usage triggers and the deposit-scope caveat, nothing material is missing for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 100%, with the account list cap (10) and network enum already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'one or several accounts' and adds no syntax or format beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads who may deposit into one or several accounts') and then enumerates the returned content: default rule (Accept/AllowExisting/Reject), per-resource exceptions, and depositor badges. It is clearly distinct from the sibling builders, which produce manifests rather than read rules.

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 explicit use cases ('explain why an airdrop or a payment did not arrive') and a named downstream alternative ('before build_deposit_rules_manifest'), plus an exclusion scoping the tool: these rules only govern try_deposit_* third-party deposits, while owner deposits always land.

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