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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit for two real behavioral facts not in annotations: the authenticated wallet is excluded server-side (so depth differs from raw book), and the call is all-or-nothing ('any item failure fails the whole call').

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, zero waste, and the scope and exclusions are front-loaded before the atomicity caveat. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

An output schema exists and every parameter is richly documented, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the two non-obvious behaviors (caller exclusion, all-or-nothing failure) and the batch bound; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 100%, so chainId, marketAddress, side, view, and depth are all already documented with enums and constraints. The description only restates the 1-100 item bound and the wallet exclusion, adding essentially nothing about parameter format or semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Get ... caller-executable destination books') with an explicit batch bound of 1-100 and a named view mode. The batch/plural nature distinguishes it from kellian_get_orderbook and kellian_get_market_depth, but the description never names those siblings to make the routing unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'caller-executable' and the server-side exclusion of the authenticated wallet signal this is for depth the caller can actually trade against. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kellian_get_orderbook or kellian_get_market_depth, and no prerequisites or exclusions are listed.

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