lemma_get_check_deposit

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. The verb 'Get' makes clear this is a read operation, but the description does not address not-found behavior, permissions, or whether cached or current data is returned.

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, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and the target resource.

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 one-parameter fetch operation, the core call context is present and sufficient for tool selection. However, with no annotations or output schema, return shape, error cases, and edge behavior remain implicit, leaving the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only defines check_deposit_id as a string. The phrase 'by ID' ties that parameter to the lookup key, but adds no format, origin, or validation details; this is minimally acceptable for a single self-descriptive parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('check deposit'), and specifies the scope ('one ... by ID'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tool lemma_list_check_deposits, which would be used for retrieving multiple check 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?

The wording implies the tool is for retrieving a specific check deposit when its ID is already known. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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