get_bridge_deposit

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context beyond the schema: only deposits owned by the authenticated account are returned, and API credentials are required. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like error handling, not-found responses, or the response format. This is a moderate level of disclosure, hence a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. Every clause adds value: the action, the resource, the ownership constraint, and the credential requirement. Perfectly concise.

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 simple fetch-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the operation and the ownership scoping. It could have explicitly mentioned the return type, but 'Fetch' implies the deposit object. It lacks details on error cases but is otherwise complete for the simplicity of the tool, hence a 4.

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 only parameter 'id' is already fully described in the schema as 'Deposit identifier.' The description adds no further semantic detail beyond reiterating that the tool fetches by id. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional information is provided.

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 clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single cross-chain (bridge) deposit'), and the method ('by id'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bridge_deposits by emphasizing 'single' and adding an ownership constraint, making the scope unambiguous.

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 description makes it clear when to use the tool—when you have a specific deposit id and need that deposit's details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scoping to 'single' and 'by id' provides a clear usage context. No exclusions are stated, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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