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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds 'Free read' and SAP MCP execution guidance about pricing, hosted calls, and signer boundaries. That goes beyond the annotations, but it does not cover error cases, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 first sentence is compact and front-loads the core purpose and output fields. The SAP MCP execution guidance paragraph is generic but still informative; it doesn't overburden the description.

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?

With only one required parameter, one optional limit, an output schema, and the provided annotations, the description covers the key behavior and parameter formats. It does not explicitly mention limits on how far back 'recent' goes, but the output schema and role scope reduce the need for additional details.

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 already documents both parameters, but the description adds concrete symbol formats and market-type conventions (spot SOL_USDC, perp SOL_PERP, stock RFQ AAPL.USDC_USDC_RFQ). This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's minimal 'Market symbol, e.g., SOL_USDC.'

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 states the action, resource, and exact return fields (id, price, quantity, quoteQuantity, timestamp ms, isBuyerMaker). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sap_backpack_get_ticker or sap_backpack_get_depth.

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 gives clear context about what the tool returns and how to format symbols, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_ticker, get_klines, or get_depth. The use case is inferred rather than explicitly routed.

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