create_bridge_deposit_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses deprecation/failure mode, idempotency keyed on (account, chain) with the same-address guarantee, the crediting effect of sending assets, and the API-credential requirement. It does not cover rate limits or response shape, but the return contract is largely implied by 'returns the address.'

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?

Front-loaded with the deprecation warning — the single most decision-relevant fact — before the functional description and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything needed: status, purpose, idempotency, side effect, and auth requirement. The deprecation note alone prevents an agent from wasting a call.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example value and a pointer to fetch_bridge_assets for discovery. The description's 'get-or-create per (account, chain)' adds the idempotency semantics of the chain argument, but otherwise the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Get or create the authenticated account's cross-chain deposit address on a chain') and immediately qualifies it with a deprecation status. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_bridge_deposit_addresses or create_deposit without reading the 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 the strongest possible when-not-to-use signal up front: 'no server implements this route ... so every call fails.' It also tells the agent how to find valid inputs ('Use `fetch_bridge_assets` to discover supported chains' via the schema) and that API credentials are required.

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