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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Show' is consistent with a read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of missing/invalid ID handling, batch limits, ordering, or what is returned. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes little extra transparency.

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 wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and key scoping attribute efficiently, which is appropriate for conciseness even though other dimensions need more content.

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 batch-lookup tool, the four-word description is too thin. With no output schema and no stated encoding for the 'ids' string, an agent lacks sufficient information to reliably construct a valid call. The read-only annotations help, but they do not compensate for the missing operational details.

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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3, and the description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond the schema. The critical ambiguity remains: 'ids' is a string labeled 'Deposit IDs' but the description does not clarify whether multiple IDs are comma-separated, JSON-encoded, or repeated.

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 states a clear verb ('Show'), a specific resource ('deposits'), and a distinguishing scope ('multiple ... by ID'). This differentiates it from the singular peer_deposit_show and from list-based tools like peer_deposit_list, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool is for.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as peer_deposit_show, peer_deposit_list, or peer_indexer_deposits_by_ids. There is no stated context, exclusions, or sibling differentiation beyond the implicit 'multiple' in the name and description.

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