Finalize a confirmed cash-out deposit

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining what the tool reads (Base receipt) and what it resolves (deposit id). It aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and no contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a precise usage constraint. No redundant wording.

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 read/resolve tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the temporal precondition, and the expected result (deposit id). It doesn't describe error handling, but with the read-only and idempotent annotations, this is acceptable.

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 describes one parameter, transactionHash, with a regex pattern, but the description does not explicitly mention how this parameter maps to the transaction. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer that transactionHash is the hash of the createDeposit transaction.

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 'Read' and specifies the resource 'confirmed Base createDeposit receipt' and the outcome 'resolve the resumable Peer deposit id'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like peer_cash_prepare by referencing it as the prior step.

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 explicitly states the precondition: 'Call only after the host confirms the createDeposit transaction returned by peer_cash_prepare.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it, naming the prerequisite tool.

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