arcis_preview_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Preview shares for deposit', giving no indication of side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 extremely concise at four words, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While it is front-loaded with the verb, it is under-informative for a tool with one parameter and no annotations.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the preview returns, how the amount is used, or any constraints. A more complete description would add at least a sentence about the preview output.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'amount' with no description. The tool description does not clarify what 'amount' represents (e.g., dollar amount, number of shares). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Preview shares for deposit' clearly states the verb (preview) and the resource (shares for deposit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'arcis_contracts' or 'arcis_credit_status' by indicating a preview action. However, it could be more specific about what exactly is being previewed.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool is appropriate.

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