list_governance_deposits

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

No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral details such as pagination behavior, error handling for missing proposal_id, or order of results. The one-sentence description is insufficient for understanding the tool's runtime behavior.

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 (single sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it lacks structure and fails to earn its place by being too minimal.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description should explain pagination, defaults, and what constitutes a 'deposit.' It does none of this, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain `proposal_id`'s format, nor the effect of `page` and `limit`. The tool's purpose is vaguely stated, forcing reliance on the schema alone.

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 'List deposits for a specific proposal,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (deposits filtered by proposal). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_governance_deposit' by implying bulk retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 like 'get_governance_deposit' (retrieval of a single deposit) or other list tools. The description lacks context on required parameters or scenarios.

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