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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds transparency about the output fields (health factor, cross probability, net profit, protocol) and sorting by cross probability, which is useful for understanding behavior without an output schema. It does not disclose pagination or rate limits, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 four concise sentences, each adding meaningful information: purpose, output contents, usage, and follow-up action. It is front-loaded with a clear verb+resource and contains no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a read-only query tool with two simple, documented parameters and no output schema, this description is comprehensive. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and what to do next, making it effectively complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both limit and min_cross_prob, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter details, though it does mention cross probability (0–1) in the context of the returned data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it 'Get[s] the highest-priority liquidation candidates sorted by cross probability', identifies the target resource, and explains what each candidate includes. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on prioritization for pre-building bundles, which is distinct from prediction, reporting, or submission tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to 'prioritize which positions to pre-build bundles for' and instructs to 'Call submit_bundle when a candidate crosses HF=1.0', giving clear usage context and a follow-up action. However, it does not mention when to use alternative tools like predict_liquidation_probability or get_liquidation_waves, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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