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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a key limitation (slippage is not extrapolated beyond measured depth), clarifies that the verdict reflects the user's policy rather than CoinGraph's own judgment, and includes a disclaimer about ratings being opinions. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or explicit read-only status, but it goes well beyond a minimal description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the metric list, the key slippage caveat, and the policy/disclaimer. At roughly 90 words across four sentences, each sentence contributes meaningful content without unnecessary elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the returned concepts (slippage, depth share, spread, unlocks, flags, health/risk), the policy evaluation mechanism, and the non-extrapolation boundary. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though explicit output field names are not enumerated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `policy` is a set of user-supplied thresholds and that `horizon` defines the unlock window, and it ties `size` to the depth-share metric. It does not add substantive semantics for `side` or `asset` beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 clearly states the tool performs pre-trade validation for an order of a given size and lists the metrics it evaluates (slippage, depth share, spread, unlocks, contract flags, health/risk). It is specific and distinct from a generic evaluation tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them.

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 'pre-trade validation' phrasing implies it should be used before executing a trade, and the description explains how custom policy thresholds are evaluated. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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