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

Annotations already flag read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds substantial extra context: best-price-first ordering, depth cap, decimal-string formatting with decimal arithmetic, and the stale-snapshot rule. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place. The main verb and target resource are front-loaded, followed only by high-value behavioral details. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given an output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and parameter coverage is complete, the description fills the remaining gaps: output ordering, depth cap, decimal-string semantics, and staleness behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters comprehensively (tokenId, depth with range, platform with enum and default), so the description need not repeat them. It adds general context about depth behavior and return formatting, but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a precise verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource: the live CLOB order book for one outcome token id. It also adds ordering and depth-cap details that clearly distinguish it from the quote, trade, and market siblings.

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 intended use is clearly implied by 'Fetch the live CLOB order book for one outcome token id.' However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_market_quotes or how it relates to sibling market-data tools, so routing guidance is only implicit.

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