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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not burdened with stating those. It adds useful behavioral context: the operation is a read/resolution step that depends on host confirmation of the createDeposit transaction.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the precondition is stated immediately afterward in a clear, direct way.

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 single-parameter read-oriented tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides the key inputs and the timing constraint. It mentions the output concept ('resumable Peer deposit id') but does not specify the return shape or error behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for transactionHash semantics. It indirectly implies the hash is the confirmed Base createDeposit receipt, but it never explicitly names the parameter or states that transactionHash is the receipt hash. The one-parameter schema keeps this usable, but the mapping is left to inference.

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 names a specific action ('Read a confirmed Base createDeposit receipt') and a specific outcome ('resolve the resumable Peer deposit id'), clearly distinguishing this finalization tool from the many read/show/list siblings. The title reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 precondition: 'Call only after the host confirms the createDeposit transaction.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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