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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description contributes nothing beyond that baseline — nothing about what 'depth' actually returns, how the session wallet affects results, or how cross-chain address collisions behave.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. But its brevity comes from omission rather than economy — it is under-specified, not efficiently worded, and carries no structural cues about the available views or depth defaults.

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?

The tool has five parameters, an enum view mode, and sibling alternatives, yet the description explains none of the selection-relevant nuance (batch vs single, public vs session-excluded depth). An output schema and rich parameter descriptions exist, which covers return values and syntax, but the description leaves the tool's core usage decision undocumented.

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 the parameter semantics (side 0/1, public vs executable_for_caller, depth default 20, chainId disambiguation) are fully documented in the schema. Per the high-coverage baseline this lands at 3 even though the description itself adds zero parameter meaning.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to prefer this over problee_batch_get_orderbooks (batch) or problee_get_market_depth, and no note about the authenticated-session dependency of the 'executable_for_caller' view. The agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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