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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add data-semantics context — and it does: bucket thresholds are explicit, buckets are stated to be per published row, and only Binance aggregates taker orders. Those caveats materially affect how results can be interpreted, though it does not disclose ordering, aggregation window, or result shape.

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 compact sentences: metric definition first, interpretation second, data caveat third. The parenthetical threshold list is dense but earns its space; only the trailing exchange guidance is wasted because it points at a nonexistent parameter.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the metric is, how buckets are defined, and where the data is unreliable across venues. The remaining gap is the return shape (per-row per-bucket values) and the effect of the 240-minute default, plus the incorrect reference to an exchange parameter.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds no meaning for `symbol` or `minutes` and instead introduces a phantom `exchange` parameter that the schema does not accept. That actively misleads an agent about the call signature rather than clarifying it.

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 names a specific metric (cumulative volume delta) plus a specific disaggregation (retail <$10K, mid <$100K, large <$1M, whale >$1M), which is far more precise than a name restatement. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_footprint, get_microstructure, and get_long_short_ratio because it defines exactly what is being split and by what thresholds.

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 gives interpretive guidance (whale-vs-retail divergence as the 'smart-money reading') and one usage constraint (compare buckets within a single venue because only Binance aggregates taker orders). However, it never says when to choose this over sibling orderflow tools such as get_footprint or get_microstructure, and its cross-venue advice references an `exchange=binance` parameter that does not exist in the input schema.

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