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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish the safety profile, and the description adds the useful context that the hash resolution comes from on-chain deposit data. It does not disclose output shape or failure behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden on the description.

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 redundant wording. It is concise and easy to scan, though it may be terser than ideal given that no output schema exists.

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 schema fully documents the required parameters and the annotation signals a safe read operation, but the description still leaves the meaning of 'resolve' and the response format unspecified. With no output schema, an agent lacks enough context to know what to expect from the call.

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%: depositId and paymentMethodHash each have descriptions, and params is documented as optional raw JSON merged beneath typed fields. The prose description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the weight and the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a payee hash'), and identifies the input domain ('on-chain deposit data'), so an agent can recognize this as a read-like lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling deposit or indexer tools, but the unique scope is reasonably clear.

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 such as peer_deposit_show or peer_indexer_deposits_show. It only states what the tool does, without exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose it.

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