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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Fetch' is consistent with that. The description adds a small behavioral clue—'directly from ProtocolViewer'—suggesting a live source rather than an indexer/cache. It does not disclose pagination, output shape, or how parameters affect the request, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the subject, scope, and source are all front-loaded. Every word contributes meaningful selection information.

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 simple read-only list operation the core facts are present, but the description omits selection guidance between overlapping deposit-list tools and does not clarify that 'owner' is semantically required even though the schema lists no required fields. The open-ended 'params' object is also left unexplained, making the definition adequate but incomplete.

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%, with both 'owner' and 'params' already described. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema about valid raw JSON keys or owner formatting, so the baseline score 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('deposits'), scoped to 'an owner' and sourced 'directly from ProtocolViewer'. This clearly differentiates it from generic deposit-list siblings and pv show endpoints.

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 use this tool over sibling alternatives such as peer_deposit_list, peer_indexer_deposits_list, or peer_pv_deposit_show. There are no conditions, exclusions, or preferred-alternative hints, so the agent must infer usage from the name.

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