get_deposits

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', but fails to disclose pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, inclusion of pending items, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a well-specified read 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Perfectly efficient for its size.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description to explain return values and behavioral nuances. It does not mention what a deposit is, how pagination works, or what the response contains. This is under-specified for a 3-parameter tool.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond indicating the portfolio context, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('deposits'), and scope ('for a portfolio'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_portfolio_ledger (ledger) and get_portfolio_assets (assets). The purpose is immediately understood.

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 or any exclusions. Unlike the get_calls example, it does not mention that other tools should be used for different types of history or filtering, so the agent gets no decision support.

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