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 covered. The description adds useful scoping behavior (configured wallet fallback vs explicit owner) but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the effect of passing raw params. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core verb, resource, and scoping mechanism are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 list tool, the description and annotations cover the essentials: safety, owner semantics, and parameter purposes. However, there is no output schema and no mention of the return shape, pagination, or limits, and the tool is not differentiated from several similar sibling list tools. The agent can likely invoke it correctly, but some context is missing.

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 both parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that omitting 'owner' uses the configured wallet while supplying it overrides that, and by indicating that 'params' is optional raw JSON merged below typed fields.

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 verb and resource ('List deposits') and gives the ownership scope: 'configured wallet or explicit owner.' It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling deposit-list tools such as peer_pv_deposit_list_owner or peer_indexer_deposits_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 implies the primary use case: list deposits for either the configured wallet or a caller-supplied owner. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or which alternative to choose among the many deposit-related sibling tools.

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