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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the exact response payload (deposit address or Lightning invoice, amount, memo, expiry, rozoPaymentId), states the custody model ('This server holds no keys and sends nothing'), and spells out the failure/expiry behavior of an unfunded order. That is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 does, then the return shape, then the funding constraints — a sensible order with no filler. The enumerated return list is slightly dense but each item is informative.

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 correctly supplies the return fields, and it covers custody, expiry, and amount-matching semantics. The only real omission is how this fits relative to the sibling tools in a payment flow.

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 chainId, tokenSymbol and url are already documented with examples and enums. The description reinforces the chain/token exactness requirement but adds no new syntax or format detail, 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 ('Creates a one-time deposit order') plus the funding model ('you pay from your own wallet'), which is concrete and non-tautological. It does not, however, explicitly separate this from the sibling quote_invoice, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 post-creation operating guidance ('Send exactly the amount, on exactly that chain and token, before expiresAt') and reassures that an unfunded order expires free, which implicitly encourages calling it. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus quote_invoice or payment_status, leaving routing to inference.

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