jumbo_get_deposits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a read-only, order-scoped query and describes the shape of the result (catalogue + returned deposits + returned total), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and behavior on an unknown order_id, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its contents front-loaded and the required-parameter constraint following. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the scoping rule. Auth/permission expectations and error behavior are not covered, but the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is 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% for the single order_id parameter, and the schema already notes it comes from order history/receipts. The description only restates that order_id is required and adds the rationale that the query is order-scoped, which is modest added value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read) and resource (statiegeld/deposit information for one order) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: the deposit catalogue, the returned deposits, and the returned total. No sibling tool covers deposits, so it is distinguishable from the rest of the jumbo_* family without opening any schema.

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 a prerequisite (order_id is required) and a scoping constraint (the returned-deposits query is order-scoped), which implies usage for a single known order. However, it names no alternative and states no when-not-to-use condition, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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