deposit

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

Annotations set destructiveHint=true, but the description describes adding funds, which is not destructive. This is a contradiction; description does not resolve it or explain any destructive 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?

Relatively concise with clear sections for args and returns, though the docstring format adds some redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return format. With output schema present, it's sufficient for a simple tool, but the annotation contradiction decreases trust.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds only marginal clarification (e.g., 'must be > 0'). No significant added meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Record a cash deposit into the ledger', specifies the resource (cash deposit), and distinguishes from siblings like withdraw, buy, sell.

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?

Explicitly states this is bookkeeping-only with no real payment, implying it's a simulated deposit. Implicitly tells when to use (adding cash) vs not (withdrawing).

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