get_micro_deposit_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states 'Get' without confirming read-only nature, idempotency, or lack of side effects. The absence of any behavioral context is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It earns a middle score as it is not overly verbose but lacks substance.

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 the tool requires two parameters, has no annotations, and an output schema is present but not described, the description is insufficient. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., micro-deposits must have been initiated) or what the response contains, leaving the agent with inadequate context.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. While 'customer_id' and 'account_id' are somewhat self-explanatory in this context, the description adds no additional meaning about their roles or format.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves status/details of a micro-deposit verification. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and a distinct resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like initiate_micro_deposits and verify_micro_deposits.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify that this should be used after initiating micro-deposits to check status, nor does it contrast with verify_micro_deposits.

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