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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a latest-snapshot read, results are ordered largest-first, and side/price/size/distance/duration metrics are defined. It does not discuss rate limits or empty-result behavior, but the key behavioral semantics are disclosed.

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 a single dense sentence with the core resource and ordering front-loaded, followed by return-field semantics. Every phrase adds information and there is no redundant repetition.

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 enumerates the return fields and their meanings, and the schema fully documents all parameters. It is nearly complete for invoking the tool correctly, though it does not clarify sibling selection or edge cases such as no qualifying walls.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds some conceptual meaning for side (bid = buy wall below price, ask = sell wall above) and clarifies distance/size semantics, but most parameter meaning is carried by the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and scope: large resting limit orders (walls) in the latest futures order book snapshot, sorted largest first. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_liquidation_levels or get_signals.

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 the tool is for inspecting current order-book liquidity, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer the use case from the resource name and return fields.

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