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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds genuine methodological context — the heuristic distinguishes real absorption from pulling based on whether trades executed into the level before it vanished — which tells the agent how to interpret results. It stops short of disclosing data-resolution limits, minimum liquidity requirements, or false-positive caveats that matter for a heuristic-based signal.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's method and then lists the output taxonomy — every clause carries information. Slightly terse for a heuristic tool, but no filler or redundancy.

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?

With annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the main remaining unknown is the return payload, which has no output schema. The description supplies the four classification labels but not their supporting fields (price level, size, timestamps, confidence), so an agent knows the vocabulary but not the response shape.

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 100%, with symbol, minutes and exchange all documented inline including alias folding and the venue list, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about how the look-back window or venue selection affects the wall classification, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 analytical object (order-book wall lifecycle) and enumerates the concrete output categories — active_wall / absorbed / pulled_wall / suspected_spoof — so an agent knows exactly what signal this returns. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbours such as get_orderbook_heatmap or get_microstructure, so the sibling routing burden is left to the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The classification scheme implies the tool is for spoofing/wall-detection analysis, but nothing states the conditions that should route an agent here rather than to the orderbook heatmap or microstructure tools.

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