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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the map is an estimate in 0.5% price bands from 15% below to 15% above price, it reports largest long and short clusters, totals within 5%, and the map's measured accuracy, and it is redrawn every five minutes. This is exactly the interpretive context an agent needs for a derived/estimated dataset.

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 description is dense but front-loaded: it states the core concept first, then the supporting details about bands, clusters, totals, accuracy, refresh cadence, and coverage. It is a single long sentence with multiple clauses, which is slightly run-on but every clause contributes useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does: liquidation levels by price band, largest long and short clusters, totals within 5%, and measured accuracy. Freshness, estimation method, and asset coverage are all stated, leaving no significant gap for an agent calling 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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description's mention that the tool covers BTC and ETH adds little beyond the enum and does not give additional guidance such as default behavior or when to choose one asset over another.

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 verb ('Where leveraged Bitcoin or Ethereum futures positions would be liquidated right now') and names the product ('CryptoKeyhole's live liquidation map') with its exact scope. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_derivatives_snapshot or get_support_levels without inspecting the 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?

The description implies usage by saying the map is live and redrawn every five minutes, and that it covers BTC and ETH, so the agent can infer this is the tool for current liquidation-cluster data. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as get_derivatives_snapshot, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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