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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, non-read-only action and that it is not idempotent. The description adds the useful fact that it returns a DEP-YYYY-NNNN id, but it does not disclose downstream effects such as how the deposit affects balances or statements. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then immediately gives the most important return detail, the DEP-YYYY-NNNN id. Every clause earns its place.

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 a fully self-describing 10-parameter schema, annotations for mutating behavior, and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome and return ID. It is slightly thin on downstream effects and selection guidance, but for creating a record it is largely complete.

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 the schema carries the full burden of documenting the 10 parameters. The description adds high-level context by naming minor units, currency, arrival date, and bank reference, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise verb ('Record') and resource ('security or retainer deposit received from a client'), enumerates the key fields (minor units, currency, date, bank reference), and mentions the resulting DEP-YYYY-NNNN id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like deposit_apply, deposit_refund, and deposit_list.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deposit_apply, deposit_refund, or deposit_list. The only implied context is that it is for recording a newly received deposit, which is not enough guidance to prevent an agent from confusing it with related deposit operations.

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