get_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is 'Read-only' and mentions the returned detail includes allocated payments, but it does not cover permissions, error behavior, or other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key operation and resource come first, followed by return detail and read-only status.

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 one-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, lookup key, returned scope, and read-only nature. It could be strengthened by explicitly pointing to search_deposits for lookup workflows, but that is a minor gap.

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 only parameter is clearly documented as 'Deposit ID' in the schema. The description reinforces that the ID identifies a single bank deposit but adds no format, range, or other semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('single bank deposit'), the lookup key ('by ID'), and additional returned content ('including its allocated payments'). This clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings such as search_deposits.

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 description implies the tool should be used when a single deposit is needed by ID, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus search_deposits or other get/deposit tools. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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