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 that this fetches multiple deposits with relations, but it does not clarify what 'relations' means, how many IDs are accepted, or what happens with invalid or missing IDs.

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 or redundant restatement. It earns its place by naming the action, resource, and distinguishing 'relations' qualifier.

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?

Given the large sibling family and the absence of an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'relations' are returned, how 'composite ID' is formatted, or how this differs from close siblings peer_indexer_deposits_by_ids and peer_indexer_deposits_list_relations.

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 high and all properties have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool-level description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already says, and the schema descriptions themselves are vague ('Composite IDs.', 'Relation options.'), so it does not elevate the score.

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 action ('Fetch'), a resource ('multiple deposits'), and a differentiator ('with relations by composite ID'). It is clear enough to distinguish from a plain fetch, but it does not explicitly contrast with the very similar sibling peer_indexer_deposits_by_ids or peer_indexer_deposits_list_relations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as peer_indexer_deposits_by_ids or peer_indexer_deposits_show. The phrase 'by composite ID' only implies a data shape, not a decision rule or exclusions.

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