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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real value on top by establishing that the rules are static and that the tool performs only rules work. It does not disclose what happens when some of the requested addresses are unknown or have no rules — the main behavioral unknown for a batch read — so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler: capability and contents first, then the sibling comparison and exclusions. The front-loading is exactly right for a decision an agent must make before calling.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain returns. What is left out is batch failure semantics (partial results vs. error on unknown markets), which would matter for an agent assembling a 200-address call. Otherwise the definition is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, both parameters carry terse schema docs (chain ID with a Base 8453 hint, and address format). The description reinforces the 200-market cap but adds no meaning about chainId selection or address list semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get static per-market orderbook trading rules") and enumerates the payload contents (price grid, size floors, fees, TIF, STP) along with the batch scope of up to 200 markets. It also explicitly contrasts itself with problee_get_market, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: "Use this instead of polling problee_get_market per market." It also states the negative space — no volume, reputation, resolution surfaces, or prices — which tells the agent when this call is not sufficient and that other tools are needed for those surfaces.

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