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 only 'daily snapshots,' implying a historical list, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or what the response contains. For a tool with a limit parameter, this is sparse behavioral context.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every word earns its place. There is zero waste.

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 tool with no output schema and only a vague description, an agent may not understand what a 'daily snapshot' entails, how the composite depositId works, or how the limit affects results. The description omits details that would help an agent call it correctly, even though annotations cover safety.

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 all three parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and while the parameter descriptions are minimal, the schema does carry the weight. The cryptic 'params' raw JSON is not clarified by the tool description either.

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 verb ('fetch') and resource ('deposit daily snapshots'), which clearly indicates the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like peer_indexer_deposits_show or peer_deposit_show, which might also return deposit data. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many related deposit and indexer tools in the sibling list, but the description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent has no clue when to pick this over peer_indexer_deposits_show.

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