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 concept of 'delegated deposits' but does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects (which are none). Given the annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds minimal but acceptable 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 appropriately brief for a simple list operation, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the many sibling tools (peer_deposit_list, peer_indexer_delegations_by_deposit, etc.), the description leaves room for confusion about what 'delegated deposits' means. It also doesn't hint at the return value since there is no output schema. However, for a read-only list with one required parameter and well-documented params, it is minimally sufficient.

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 parameters (limit, offset, params, pagination, rateManagerId) already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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 'List delegated deposits for a vault.' states a specific verb (list), a resource type (delegated deposits), and an owner (vault). It is clear and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like peer_deposit_list or peer_indexer_delegations_by_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool returns deposits delegated to a vault, as opposed to peer_deposit_list which lists all deposits, or peer_indexer_delegations_by_deposit which lists delegations for a deposit. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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