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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: cache TTL, cost reduction, and execution guidance. However, annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, implying potential side effects, while the description only describes a read operation. The description does not address this inconsistency or clarify idempotency. The execution guidance is relevant but generic.

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 and cache behavior. However, the lengthy 'SAP MCP execution guidance' block appears generic and could be shortened or moved. It adds necessary payment context but reduces conciseness. Overall, adequate but not optimized.

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 description covers the tool's output (what data is returned), cache behavior, cost implications, and payment routing, which is reasonably complete given the existence of an output schema. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over specific alternatives and does not address the readOnlyHint mismatch, but these are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the cache behavior and how forceRefresh interacts with it (bypasses cache). This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's parameter description, earning a score above baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a complete market snapshot'), and lists the exact data included (leverage, OI, flags, oracle prices, pool health). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sap_adrena_get_markets or sap_adrena_get_prices by offering a comprehensive, cached snapshot in one call.

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 provides clear usage context: caching with a 30-second TTL and cost reduction for polling bots. It implicitly suggests using this tool for frequent polling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use sap_adrena_get_markets instead), nor does it include when-not-to-use guidance, leaving room for improvement.

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