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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and non-destructive, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with those. It adds a little specificity ('effective manager fee', 'delegated deposit') but does not disclose behavior such as whether the fee is computed on-chain, what inputs are required, or the shape of the result.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no repetition or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this description is nearly sufficient: it names the exact resource and context. It stops just short of complete because there is no output schema and no indication of the return value shape.

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% and the parameter descriptions (escrow address, deposit ID, optional raw params) are present in the schema. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('effective manager fee for a delegated deposit'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like peer_vault_effective_rate, so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'for a delegated deposit' gives some context for when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. With many fee/rate-related siblings, an explicit routing rule would strengthen this.

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