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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real behavioral context: the metric is measured from the venue aggressor tag rather than inferred from bar direction, and the caller must report coveredMinutes rather than the requested minutes. It stops short of describing payload shape or any limits on repeated reads.

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?

The critical disambiguation (executed vs resting) is front-loaded, and every following sentence carries routing, measurement-provenance, or window-selection information. Dense but with no filler.

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, but the description names the payload contents (buy/sell volume by aggressor, delta, footprint by price level, POC, absorption/stacked imbalance) and the coveredMinutes caveat. For a 10-parameter, all-optional tool this is enough for correct invocation.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining parameter relationships the schema does not: candleTime reads exactly that bar and overrides the minutes window, and timeframe only applies with candleTime (defaulting to the chart timeframe). Defaults for market/symbol resolving to the chart are implied rather than spelled out.

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 resource and scope: executed (not resting) trades, split by aggressor side, with delta, footprint, POC and absorption. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling orderbook_read, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (orderbook_read) for resting liquidity/walls and gives the selecting condition: 'use it when the question is who is being aggressive, which candles cannot answer.' It also distinguishes two modes of use, single-candle via candleTime versus the trailing `minutes` window.

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