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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say that this is a pure read, what the response looks like (no output schema exists), how unknown endpoints are handled, or what happens when `endpoint` is omitted. Only the implicit 'Get' signals non-destructiveness.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

The tool is simple, but against a crowded sibling namespace of similarly named API-info tools and with no output schema, the description should clarify scope and return shape. Neither the optional-endpoint behavior nor the 'auth' mode is addressed.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'auth' type value. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: retrieving information about Orderly REST API endpoints or WebSocket streams. However, it does not distinguish itself from the four sibling API-info tools (get_indexer_api_info, get_orderly_one_api_info, get_public_info_api_info, get_strategy_vault_api_info), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which API-info tool to pick.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling *api_info tools, and no explanation of when to supply `endpoint` versus omitting it. The word 'or' hints at two modes but leaves the selection entirely to inference.

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