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 a little context ('via the indexer', 'composite deposit ID') but does not disclose behavior such as missing-record handling, pagination, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 fetch with one required parameter and high schema coverage, this description is close to sufficient. However, there is no output schema, no explanation of the 'options' behavior, and no mention of error cases or relationship to similar sibling tools.

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 depositId, params, and options are already documented. The description mostly restates 'composite deposit ID' from the schema and adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond that.

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 specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('delegation record'), and a scope ('via the indexer', 'composite deposit ID'). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling delegation-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. An agent can only infer when to use it from the tool name and the nature of the lookup.

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