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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It fully discloses the tool's determinism, lack of LLM involvement, and cost (free), which are key behavioral traits. It doesn't explicitly state side effects (e.g., rate limits, idempotency), but for a read-only data tool, this is sufficient.

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 a single sentence listing all data components in a comma-separated list, making it dense but efficient. It front-loads the deterministic nature and ends with an actionable use case. No wasted words.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what data the tool returns and its purpose. It lacks explicit mention of output format or limitations, but for a data brief tool, the enumerated data points are comprehensive enough.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter, symbol. The description clarifies that it is a perp symbol and provides a default (BTCUSDT) in the schema, but doesn't add format details (e.g., case sensitivity, supported exchanges). Baseline for low coverage but simple params.

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 clearly states it provides a deterministic market brief for a perp symbol, enumerating specific data points (liquidations, funding, OI, flows, risk zones, positioning). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing determinism and no LLM involvement, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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?

It implies use as an input for 'your own reasoning' and is free, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_liquidations or get_open_interest. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the data scope is clear.

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