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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior detail — that depth is capped at 5 levels and that the payload is either a simulated LMSR buy ladder or a live aggregated order-book snapshot. It doesn't mention rate limits or probe behavior for the omitted chainId, but those are minor against an output schema that documents the response.

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 filler; the core purpose and the 5-level cap lead, with the sibling routing trailing. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 a full output schema, complete annotations, and 100% param coverage, the description only needs to explain the dual response shape and its size limit — both of which it does. Nothing required for a correct call 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% for both params (address, chainId) including the chain-probing fallback, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves — its `kind` reference is a response discriminator, not an input — so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('5-level market depth for a market') and names the two shapes it can return, discriminated by `kind`. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling kellian_get_orderbook, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the 'discovery-sized view' and points to kellian_get_orderbook for full depth, which is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative signal. It stops short of saying whether the agent selects `kind` or the server derives it from the market type, leaving one inference point.

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