list_bridge_deposit_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the failure mode (every call fails), the reason (cancelled design), and an auth requirement ('Requires API credentials'). It does not detail what the auth mechanism is, but that is a minor gap for a tool that is never callable.

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-loads the actionable warning first, then the intended purpose, in two short sentences. Nothing is padded and the ordering prioritizes what the agent needs to decide not to call this.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less, deprecated stub, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool was meant to do, that it is unusable, why, and that credentials would be required. No further information would change agent behavior.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for on the parameter side.

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: 'List the authenticated account's cross-chain deposit addresses across chains.' This distinguishes it from the related write sibling create_bridge_deposit_address and the deposit-list siblings, though the deprecation notice dominates the opening.

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 could not be clearer about when NOT to use the tool: 'Deprecated: no server implements this route... so every call fails.' An agent is unambiguously steered away from calling it, with a ticket reference (ENG-11460) as evidence.

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