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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the data are modeled/ESTIMATED rather than observed positions, states the derivation method (candles + open-interest deltas), notes the CEXs do not publish positions, flags snapshot-only behavior, and explicitly warns it does NOT predict price. That is unusually rich provenance and limitation disclosure for a read tool.

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 a bracketed tag line and then flows into scope, alternatives, and return shape in roughly priority order; nearly every clause earns its place. It is dense and slightly cryptic in places (the 'RISK AHEAD' tag is unexplained), which costs a point but does not obscure the core message.

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 exists, so the description supplies the return shape (notional per bin by leverage tier 5/10/20/25/50/100x and by exchange, plus cumulative long/short curves) plus how to read the ranking. Combined with the explicit sibling routing and limitations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 for two of three parameters by enumerating the accepted values ('exchange: all | binance | bybit | okx' and 'range: 12h | 1d | 3d | 7d'), which the schema leaves as bare strings. 'symbol' is self-evident but undefined, and no format examples or defaults are given, keeping this short of a 5.

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 with full scope: 'ESTIMATED open leveraged positions on Binance/Bybit/OKX per price bin at their liquidation price, from candles and open-interest deltas'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest siblings by naming the alternative for each case (heatmap = time evolution, hl/lighter = REAL positions, PAST tools = already liquidated), so an agent can route 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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Current snapshot only; for its evolution over time use get_liquidation_heatmap; for REAL positions use get_hl_liquidation_map or get_lighter_liquidation_map; for what already got liquidated use the PAST tools.' It also names get_accuracy for validating the estimates. Nothing is left to inference.

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