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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context though: results are scoped to the calling key's account and mode (live vs test), are ordered newest first, and require a LayerHop API key — none of which the annotations convey.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource, the scoping constraint, and the sort order before the returned fields.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields (address, route, status, deposit count) and covers auth, scope, and ordering. Pagination is only implicit — the agent must read the cursor parameter to learn pages exist — which is a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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%, so label, limit, cursor, and status are all already documented, including the pagination contract for cursor. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics of its own, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list deposit addresses), the scoping dimension (the API key's account and mode, live or test), the sort order (newest first), and the fields returned. The plural 'list' plus ordering cleanly separates it from the singular get_deposit_address sibling.

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?

Mentions a prerequisite ('Needs a LayerHop API key') but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and never points to get_deposit_address, create_deposit_address, or refresh_deposit_address as the choice for a single address. Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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