Print Deposits Status

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the qualifier 'active' indicating it returns only open positions, but it does not discuss ordering, pagination, or any edge cases. Since output schema likely covers return fields, the added value here is minimal beyond the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with 'List' and enumerates the included fields without any fluff or repetition.

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?

Given a zero-parameter tool with a clear output schema and annotations that convey safety, the description is sufficient to understand what the tool does and what it returns. It does not need to explain return values in detail because the output schema exists.

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?

No parameters are defined, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate given zero parameters, meaning no confusion is possible.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'my active Pacifica Print deposits' while enumerating the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_status or check_position which likely serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context (lists active deposits with specific fields) which implies it is for obtaining a snapshot of open print deposits. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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