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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'current controller-based' scope, which clarifies that this shows present delegation rather than historical or indexer data. It does not provide additional behavioral context such as response format, potential errors, or data freshness semantics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and the object it operates on. Every word contributes to the core meaning with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple read-only tool with clear annotations and well-described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the returned delegation information contains, and the phrase 'controller-based delegation' is left undefined, which could leave an agent guessing at the exact semantics.

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 input schema already explains escrow, deposit, and the raw params passthrough. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Show current controller-based delegation for a deposit.' This is clear about the operation's core purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like peer_indexer_delegations_by_deposit or peer_deposit_show, so an agent must infer which tool is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as peer_deposit_show, peer_deposit_show_many, or peer_indexer_delegations_by_deposit. It states only what the tool does, not the conditions that would select it over other peer_* tools.

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