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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is 'live' (current snapshot), 'public' (no auth implied), and can include live or paper orders. It stops short of describing the exact response shape, but the bids/asks summary conveys the core behavior.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence covers purpose, scope, parameters, and access. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with three parameters and no nested objects, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers what the tool does, which team it applies to, the level filter, and the live/paper mode. There is no output schema to describe return values, so a bit more on the exact bid/ask level format would make it fully complete.

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 100%, and the description reinforces the roles of team, levels, and mode. It adds the 'up to levels' nuance for depth, which is helpful, but the schema already documents defaults and enums. There is a minor wording mismatch: description says 'up to levels' while schema says 'Minimum price levels', which could confuse an agent.

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?

Description states a specific operation ('Live orderbook depth') on a specific resource ('one Arena team (BLUE or RED)') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_arena_state, get_arena_history, and get_orderbook. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 gives clear context: use this to fetch orderbook depth for one Arena team, with mode selecting live vs paper and levels controlling depth. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as get_orderbook for non-Arena markets, but the 'Arena team' scoping makes the intended use obvious enough.

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