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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: this is a descriptive documentation surface, not an execution path, and the authoritative execution lane lives elsewhere. It does not discuss caching, freshness, or rate limits, but the core behavioral framing is present.

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, with the purpose front-loaded and the caveat about execution authority placed at the end where it belongs. The parenthetical enumerations inside the first sentence make it dense, but every clause maps to a distinct lane rather than padding.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description's job is scoping only, and it delivers that by naming the lanes covered. An agent knows what it will learn from a call and where that knowledge does not extend (execution). No material gap for a parameterless discovery tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The listing of lanes is informational rather than parameter-related, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Describe the canonical market-data lanes') and enumerates exactly what it covers: WebSocket subscribe/channel/message shapes, REST snapshot/quote/orderbook, consumer SSE, and the agent control-plane WebSocket. That enumeration distinguishes it from sibling discovery tools like problee_discover_events or problee_discover_webhooks, though it doesn't name them directly.

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 closing sentence tells the agent that quote/order-book tool calls remain the execution-authoritative path and this only describes realtime/display lanes, which implies when to reach for it. It stops short of stating when to use this versus the other problee_discover_* tools, so the routing decision is only partially supported.

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