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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real context beyond that: results come from a 'served ... wall snapshot' (implying a point-in-time, possibly stale snapshot rather than a live computation) and that some fields are 'deprecated verdict compatibility fields' the agent should not rely on. It still omits what the returned 'state' values mean and whether the snapshot can lag.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key nouns (liquidation levels, state, reasons, symbol) appear early. It is dense with internal vocabulary but not padded.

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?

Given a read-only, one-required-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and flags the deprecated fields. The main omission is explaining how the optional position-context parameters alter the response, but that is modest relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions only the symbol and the returned fields; it says nothing about how side, entry, and leverage — which appear to be the caller's own position context — influence the served levels, which is the most meaningful semantic gap here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource set ('served liquidation levels, state and reasons for one symbol'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_liquidation_census or get_magnet_levels_teaser. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, and terms like 'Desk Read wall snapshot' are internal jargon an agent must guess at.

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: nothing says when to prefer desk_read over get_engine_read, get_liquidation_census, hk_levels, or the magnet tools that also return level data. Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'one symbol', with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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