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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the ordering by cross probability, the nature of the data (predicted next price move), and the intended workflow (pre-building bundles). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by output details and actionable usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is tightly written and avoids filler.

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 lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (health factor, cross probability, net profit, protocol) and explains the sort order and intended use. Parameters are fully described in the schema. The tool's role in the overall workflow is clear, and it connects to a sibling action (submit_bundle). This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it implies that min_cross_prob filters 'high-priority' candidates, but the schema already explains the parameters fully. The description does not introduce new parameter semantics, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get the highest-priority liquidation candidates sorted by cross probability.' It specifies the exact output fields (health factor, cross probability, net profit, protocol) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cross-probability-based prioritization for pre-building bundles.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to prioritize which positions to pre-build bundles for.' It also provides a clear trigger for a sibling tool: 'Call submit_bundle when a candidate crosses HF=1.0.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the unique focus on cross probability implies differentiation from report-style siblings like get_daily_liquidation_report.

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