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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses endpoint names and per-call prices. It doesn't disclose whether endpoints return data, execute trades, require authentication, or have side effects. Potentially sensitive endpoints like 'execute' and 'flash' receive no safety explanation.

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 description is well-structured with a front-loaded summary, coverage line, and a bulleted endpoint list with prices. It is somewhat long but necessary for a multi-endpoint tool. Minor inconsistency: it claims '18 endpoints' but lists 17.

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?

Despite the long endpoint list, the description lacks operational context for a complex 51-parameter tool: it doesn't explain which parameters are required per endpoint, what the outputs look like, or what execution-related endpoints actually do. No output schema and no annotations make this gap significant.

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 baseline is 3. The description's endpoint list adds context for the action enum but doesn't map specific parameters to endpoints. Most parameter descriptions in the schema are terse (e.g., 'pair', 'unit'), so the endpoint list helps identify relevant parameters but does not fully compensate for the lack of usage details.

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 clearly identifies ArbiPulse as an arbitrage-focused tool ('finding the same thing at two prices') and enumerates 17 distinct endpoints with their market coverage (prediction markets, GPU compute, AI inference, etc.). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling pulse tools by domain and purpose.

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 description implies usage through the endpoint list (e.g., sports surebets, prediction-market arbitrage) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-to-avoid. It names many use cases but doesn't provide guidance on selecting among endpoints or comparing to sibling tools.

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