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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (archived order-book snapshots), the semantic of the output (where bid/ask walls stood and when they were pulled), and the accepted exchange/symbol/time universe. It omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and snapshot cadence/coverage caveats, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and data source, then exclusions, then the parameter universe — a sensible order. It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the '[measured]' tag and the grid-field aside add slight clutter.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both the call and the return, and it does: the cell shape (time bucket, price bucket, quantity in coins) and the grid-defining fields are all given. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: exchange is enumerated (binance | bybit | okx), symbol is restricted to BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT or SOLUSDT only, and minutes is bounded to 1–1440. It even explains the grid parameters (price_min/price_max/price_step/time_step) that give the cells meaning.

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 precise verb+resource (resting limit orders over time on ONE exchange) and immediately scopes it to archived order-book snapshots producing (time bucket, price bucket, quantity) cells. It names the sibling tools it is NOT (get_liquidation_heatmap, get_footprint), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any 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 routes the agent away with 'not liquidations (see get_liquidation_heatmap for those) and not trades (get_footprint)', which is a clear when-not plus named alternative. Constraints on exchange, symbol and minutes ranges further pin down the applicable context.

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