get_bridge_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires API credentials') and the access-scoping rule ('Only deposits owned by the authenticated account are returned'). It does not state read-only status explicitly or what happens when the id is unknown/not owned, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three short sentences, with the critical deprecation/routing information front-loaded before the substantive description. No filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and ownership scoping adequately. Missing only edge-case behavior (not-found/not-owned responses) and explicit read-only confirmation.

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% and the sole parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'Deposit identifier.' The description only restates 'by id' without adding format, prefix, or source-of-id guidance, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single cross-chain (bridge) deposit by id') and immediately routes to the replacement sibling fetch_bridge_deposit. An agent can distinguish it from the plural list_bridge_deposits/fetch_bridge_deposits without opening a 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?

The deprecation notice explicitly names the alternative (fetch_bridge_deposit), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of explaining why this variant is deprecated or under what circumstances (if any) it should still be used.

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