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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds a minimal note about fetching multiple deposits by composite ID, which is consistent with annotations, but it discloses no other behaviors (e.g., pagination, error handling, or result format). With annotations covering safety, 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, front-loaded sentence: 'Fetch multiple deposits by composite ID.' It contains zero filler and directly conveys the primary action and scope, making it perfectly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, this description is too sparse. It omits essential context like what a 'composite ID' is, how to pass multiple IDs, the shape of the returned data, and when to prefer this tool over peers. An agent would struggle to call it correctly without further investigation.

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% for both properties (ids and params), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify what a composite ID is, how to format multiple IDs, or what params may contain. The schema descriptions themselves are also vague, but the tool description neither compensates nor contradicts.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('multiple deposits') using a specific verb and noun. It conveys that this tool retrieves multiple deposits by composite ID, distinguishing it from single-deposit tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or edge cases.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like peer_indexer_deposits_show or peer_deposit_show_many. The description offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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