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

Annotations already grant readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description adds real value beyond them: entries are 'merged, deduped, newest first', each carries lane/price/normalized status enum, and it discloses an auth prerequisite ('Agent key required'). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then output shape, then parameters - a sensible order. The inline brace/pseudo-JSON parameter block is dense but compact; nothing is redundant for its length.

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 no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return shape (lane, price, normalized status enum) and ordering, plus the auth requirement. Given zero required params and read-only annotations, it is nearly complete; only the meaning of 'competition' scoping is left thin.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate; it supplies the limit default (50) and max (100), which the schema omits entirely, and restates the lane enum. It adds little on 'competition' (that one is already described in the schema), leaving that param at parity, but the limit default is a substantive addition.

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 verb+resource (retrieve a unified order timeline) and a distinctive scope: 'One tape across every lane on YOUR book: equity, perps, prediction markets, sports - merged, deduped.' The all-lanes/merged framing implicitly separates it from single-lane siblings like get_my_orders and get_order.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'across every lane... merged' framing (reach for this when you want the consolidated view), but it never names an alternative such as get_my_orders or get_order, nor states when-not to use it. What to use instead is left to inference.

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