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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds 'via the indexer' as a source context. It does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or response shape, but for a read-only listing tool with safe annotations this is adequate but minimal.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could have included more useful usage detail without harming conciseness.

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?

The context is complex: no output schema, nested recursive filter and pagination objects, and dozens of related deposit and indexer tools. The description does not explain what a deposit listing includes, how filtering/pagination behave, or how this differs from sibling list variants, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% property description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are generic ('Filter object.', 'Pagination object.') and the tool description adds no detail about valid filter fields or pagination syntax.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'deposits', and names the data source 'via the indexer'. This distinguishes it from non-indexer deposit list tools, though it does not clearly differentiate it from closely related siblings like 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling group (peer_deposit_list, peer_indexer_deposits_by_ids, peer_indexer_deposits_list_relations, etc.), the absence of exclusions or alternative routing leaves usage ambiguous.

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