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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It usefully explains metric semantics (buy_ratio 0.5 = balanced) and data availability differences (1h/1d via API, denser tiers in packs), adding value beyond the schema. It does not mention output format, but the listed metrics and buy_ratio hint at the response contents.

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 short and packs multiple pieces of information into a single sentence. However, the phrase 'denser tiers in packs' is ambiguous and could be clearer, so it is not perfectly concise.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must supply substantial context. It covers core metrics and timeframe availability but omits response shape, parameter formats, and use cases, leaving the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description does little to compensate. It only hints at timeframe options via '1h/1d' and does not explain start, end, or symbol requirements. The schema itself has bare parameter names and an enum, but the description adds minimal meaning beyond that.

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 identifies the tool's output as taker buy/sell imbalance, trade counts, and quote volume, which distinguishes it from sibling data tools like get_bars or get_open_interest. Although no explicit verb is used, the tool name 'get_orderflow' plus the listed metrics convey its purpose well.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bars or get_open_interest. The description implies it is for order flow metrics but does not state scenarios, exclusions, or why an agent would choose it over a sibling tool.

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