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

The description merely restates that the tool queries deposits with filtering, adding no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It does not disclose details like pagination behavior, raw JSON param handling, or response characteristics.

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 sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so terse that it does not convey meaningful differentiating or behavioral details, making it concise but not fully effective.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, a nested raw JSON parameter object, no output schema, and many overlapping siblings. A one-line description is insufficient to orient an agent on the data source semantics, filtering behavior, or relationship to alternative deposit-list tools.

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 9 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's 'with filtering' adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Query'), resource ('deposits'), and source ('Peerlytics'), and notes filtering capability. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling deposit-related tools such as peer_deposit_list, peer_indexer_deposits_list, or peer_market_explorer_deposit.

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 about when to use this tool versus the numerous similar deposit queries in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion conditions.

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