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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and it says what status and credit count are returned, but it doesn't disclose authentication requirements (left to schema), eventual consistency or polling behavior, or error behavior when the deposit is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the check and the two pieces of information returned.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return semantics. Minor gaps remain around polling/eventual consistency and error handling, but the rich schema compensates for parameter details.

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%, and the schema fully explains deposit_id and account_key, including the Bearer token alternative. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 ('Check') and resource ('deposit'), and clarifies the returned information: paid/credited status plus credit amount. It is distinguishable from create_deposit, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with one.

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?

The phrase 'has been paid and credited yet' implies checking after deposit creation and possibly polling, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The schema's reference to 'deposit_id returned by create_deposit' supplies the only contextual link.

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