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

The read-only and non-destructive hints are already provided by annotations, and the description aligns with them. It adds the useful context that this reads through the indexer, but it does not disclose behavior for missing deposits, composite ID format, or relation expansion.

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 wasted words. It clearly conveys the action, resource, key parameter, and data source.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter, but the description omits composite ID syntax, return behavior, and explicit differentiation from the many deposit-related sibling tools. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer important selection and invocation details.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema; 'Composite ID.' is generic and does not explain what form the composite ID takes or how params/options affect the request.

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 ('a deposit'), and a distinguishing mechanism ('via the indexer') plus a key identifier ('composite ID'). It is clear enough to separate this tool from peer_deposit_show and list-style siblings, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 given about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like peer_indexer_deposits_by_ids or peer_deposit_show. The phrase 'via the indexer' implies a context, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing instructions.

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