Get Deposit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'Get' which is consistent, but provides no further behavioral details (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits). With annotations covering the safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very short (two sentences in two languages) and gets straight to the point. It could be slightly more efficient by dropping the Spanish duplicate, but it remains clear and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated true), the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers the essential purpose. No mention of edge cases or prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 100% coverage with a bilingual description for the single required parameter 'id'. The description merely restates 'by its ID', adding no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states 'Get a single deposit by its ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_deposits (which retrieves multiple) and create/update/delete_deposit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_deposits for multiple deposits, get_invoice for invoices). Context is implied by the tool name, but explicit usage conditions are missing.

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