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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description meaningfully elaborates on the idempotency (same address for same customer_ref) and discloses the key side effect that transfers are credited to the balance in USDT as separate payments. It still omits authentication needs and rate limits, but adds useful context beyond 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?

The description is three dense sentences with zero waste. The core action and idempotency are front-loaded, followed by the use-case hint and a sibling pointer, all without unnecessary repetition.

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 moderate complexity, rich schema, and annotations, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, idempotency behavior, credit conversion, and where to find network codes. It does not explain what happens when customer_ref is omitted (e.g., whether a new address is generated per call) or the exact return value, but these are minor gaps for a create/upsert operation without an output schema.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the customer_ref semantics ('one address per customer'). The description reinforces the idempotency link for customer_ref but adds no new formatting or constraint details; baseline 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 and resource: 'Gets (or creates) a permanent deposit address for a coin/network and optional customer_ref.' It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling list_static_address_networks by pointing to it for network codes, and the permanent/idempotent nature separates it from one-off payment creation tools.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate ('good for top-ups') and points to list_static_address_networks for network selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_payment or create_invoice for one-off deposits, so the agent must infer that this is only for reusable customer addresses.

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