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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds real value by disclosing a potential indexer-lag behavior, the transient ORDER_NOT_FOUND response, and safe retry semantics. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core behavior and return contents, the second gives a necessary operational warning. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description covers what is returned, the lookup key, and the notable error/retry case. No output schema exists, but the description lists the high-level fields returned, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call this tool.

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 carry more weight. It clarifies that depositId is the lookup key, and the schema provides the precise regex pattern and required flag. It does not explain how to obtain a depositId, but the single unambiguous parameter keeps this adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource and scope: one order's state, amounts, fills, and next actions, keyed by deposit id. This clearly distinguishes it from plural/list siblings like peer_cash_orders.

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 concrete operational guidance: after finalization, a brief ORDER_NOT_FOUND may be indexer lag, so retry this read and never the deposit transaction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling read tools, such as peer_cash_orders or peer_deposit_show.

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