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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: hypothetical external taker assumption, six BUY-side targets, strict one-IOC fill/spread limits, shared maker capacity, no residual price on exhaustion, partial results remaining incomplete, and no reservation or signing authority.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description then becomes dense and jargon-heavy, with phrases like 'Six independent BUY side × 100/500/1000-BPS targets consume prices strictly below initial selected ask + offset' that are difficult to parse. Most sentences carry relevant constraints, but readability suffers.

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 complex, specialized analysis tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers many behavioral constraints: static selected-book scope, no dynamic repricing, incomplete partial results, and committed-ledger capacity corroboration. Some core terms remain opaque, but the overall behavioral contract is substantially documented.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It largely repeats the schema's makerAddresses constraints (up to 64, no ownership inference) and does not explain scope, chainId, or marketAddress semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: read-only static selected-book ask movement for a selected maker roster, with exact costs and one-IOC limits. It distinguishes the result from ordinary self-excluding sweep quotes, though it does not name a specific sibling tool such as get_orderbook or estimate_market_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 instruction to supply up to 64 maker addresses and by the contrast with ordinary self-excluding sweep quotes. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance against the many orderbook and estimation siblings.

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