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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the related-entities behavior and the indexer source; it does not disclose pagination, relation-loading cost, or result shape.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name. It is concise while still stating the basic verb and resource.

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?

With four nested-object parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what 'related entities' includes or how filter, params, options, and pagination interact, the description leaves important calling decisions unexplained. It works as a label but not as a complete usage guide.

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 100%, so each parameter has at least a terse description such as 'Filter object', 'Relation options', and 'Pagination object'. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already carries.

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 names a specific action ('list') and resource ('deposits') and adds the distinguishing feature 'with related entities', which separates it from the plain peer_indexer_deposits_list sibling. However, 'related entities' is undefined, so it does not fully disambiguate from peer_indexer_deposits_by_ids_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 phrase 'with related entities' implies this tool should be used when related entities are needed, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over the plain list or by-ids variants. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are provided.

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