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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'directly from ProtocolViewer' detail, which suggests a direct API call without intermediary caching or indexing, but it doesn't disclose any limitations, error behavior, or data freshness characteristics. Since annotations cover the basics, the added value is minimal but not contradictory.

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 front-loads the key action and source. No wasted words, though it is minimal to the point of lacking any optional context. Still appropriate for its simplicity.

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 read-only fetch tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain what the response contains or any edge-case behavior, and it doesn't differentiate from siblings sufficiently. Given the high number of similar tools, a bit more context (e.g., when to use this over peer_deposit_show) would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage: depositId is described as 'Deposit ID' and params as 'Optional raw JSON params merged beneath typed fields.' The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), resource ('deposit'), and source ('directly from ProtocolViewer'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'ProtocolViewer' reference distinguishes it from indexer-based deposit tools (e.g., peer_indexer_deposits_show, peer_deposit_show).

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 versus the many similar deposit-fetching siblings. The phrase 'directly from ProtocolViewer' implies a preference for direct access over cached/indexed sources, but it doesn't explicitly state when one should choose this over alternatives or any exclusions.

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