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 'Fetch' is consistent with them. It adds little behavioral context beyond that, such as result ordering, pagination, or scope constraints, but it does indicate the kind of data returned (fund activities).

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, the resource, and the scope are all present.

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, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no note distinguishing it from peer_indexer_makers_fund_activities, an agent cannot fully infer the response shape or when this endpoint is the correct choice.

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 the schema already documents depositId as a 'Composite deposit ID' and params as raw JSON. The description itself adds no extra meaning about how to construct or interpret the parameters.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Fetch'), an object ('fund activities'), and a scope ('for a deposit'), so an agent can tell it apart from most siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely named peer_indexer_makers_fund_activities, which keeps it from a top score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes peer_indexer_makers_fund_activities and peer_indexer_query, but no condition, exclusion, or routing hint is provided.

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