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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Show' aligns with that safe profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, field expansions, or error behavior, but for a simple read-by-ID the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the verb, object, and how the object is identified.

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 lookup with one required parameter and readOnly/destructive annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain: no output schema exists, the return contents are not described, and the relationship to many sibling deposit-show tools is left unclear.

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%, and the schema already describes depositId as 'Deposit ID,' so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'by deposit ID' and adds no new meaning about the params object, ID format, or expected values.

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 ('Show'), a clear resource ('a single deposit'), and the identifying key ('deposit ID'), which distinguishes it from deposit_list and deposit_show_many. However, it does not name any sibling or clarify how it differs from other deposit-show tools such as peer_pv_deposit_show or peer_indexer_deposits_show.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like peer_deposit_list, peer_deposit_show_many, peer_pv_deposit_show, or peer_indexer_deposits_show. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and the required depositId parameter.

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