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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: deletion is refused if anything was applied or refunded, with a rationale about leaving payments/refunds with nothing behind them. It also explains the consequence of freeing the month's free-tier slot, which is not inferable from annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action, then give the safety condition and rationale in minimal words. There is no repetition of schema or annotation content and no filler.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with annotations covering destructive behavior and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description provides the essential business logic: when deletion is valid, when it will be refused, why it is refused, and what the deletion accomplishes. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 parameter is fully described in the schema as a deposit ID or exact client name. The tool description does not add any extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a deposit') and narrows scope with a precise condition ('that never moved money'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like deposit_record and deposit_refund by its deletion intent and safety restriction.

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 description gives an explicit when-to-use condition (only deposits that never moved money) and a clear when-not condition (anything applied or refunded is refused). However, it does not name an alternative tool such as deposit_refund for the refused cases, so it stops short of fully routing the agent to the correct fallback.

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