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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Depth' implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm read-only behavior, describe side effects, mention permissions, or explain the response format. For a domain-specific lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single compact sentence with the resource and key formats front-loaded. It wastes no words, though its density makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain what 'depth' returns and how the tool behaves. It covers key formats but leaves return values, errors, and safety profile unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the key formats: 'cardId|finish (tally|standard), share:<company> or lot:<id>,' which adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string parameter. The formats remain somewhat cryptic, but this is the only source of parameter semantics.

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 identifies a specific resource: 'The Exchange’s depth for one instrument,' which suggests an order-book or market-depth lookup. However, the verb is implicit ('book'), and the domain jargon leaves the purpose only partially clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as act, brief, or bureau.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (act, bureau, table_state, etc.). The description states what data is involved but gives no context about when an agent should choose it or avoid it.

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