search_deposits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait 'Read-only', which correctly signals a non-mutating operation, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or permissions, leaving gaps for a 10-parameter list tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and its definition front-loaded before the read-only note. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 filter-based search tool with no output schema, the description identifies the resource and the safety profile, and the schema fully covers the inputs. It could have noted that results are paginated or what a result row contains, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 ten parameters are already documented with formats and defaults in the schema. The description only gestures at 'filters' and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search bank deposits') and adds a defining parenthetical that clarifies what a deposit is (grouped undeposited payments moved to a bank account). It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like search_bank_transactions, search_bank_accounts, or get_deposit, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction.

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 only usage cue is 'with filters', which implies retrieval, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. It never says when to prefer this over get_deposit or search_bank_transactions, nor what conditions select it.

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