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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation and that depth is capped at 20 levels per side, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or output shape, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-free but undocumented tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the depth constraint follows immediately, so an agent gets the essentials in one pass.

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 market data tool with no output schema, the description covers the essence but is thin: with 0% schema coverage it should document the parameters, and with no annotations it should state the read-only nature explicitly. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It never mentions market_id, never explains the side enum (yes/no/both), and only obliquely references depth via '20 levels each side.' The enum and identifier semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource: 'Read top-of-book bid/ask ladder for a market.' This is distinguishable from market_get (metadata) and market_price_history (historical prices) by resource. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, but the resource is concrete enough for an agent to select it.

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 clear read purpose (inspecting current market depth), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is for live depth rather than historical or metadata lookups.

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