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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does well by marking the output as heuristic and specifying the classification categories and decision criterion. It omits some details like data source and side effects, but for an analytical get tool the core behavior is clear.

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 sentence with no filler; the core concept is front-loaded and the enumerated categories/criterion are dense but scannable.

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?

The description explains the heuristic logic, but with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no usage context, it leaves parameter semantics and selection-vs-siblings incomplete. A tool with three nondescript parameters needs more to be safely invoked beyond defaults.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (symbol, minutes, exchange). Defaults in the schema are the only hint, so the agent cannot know what 'minutes' means or which exchange values are valid.

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 resource ('order-book wall lifecycle') and a concrete behavior ('large levels classified as...'), even listing the four output states. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling market-analysis tools despite not naming them.

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?

The mechanism 'based on whether trades executed into them before they vanished' implies use for spoofing/wall-lifecycle detection, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named among the sibling tools.

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