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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the endpoint requires zero auth, is a single POST route, is dispatched by a type field, and that a lookup returns params, response fields, example, weight, and freshness. It omits rate limits and whether calling with no arguments returns an index of all 24 types.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the identifying facts (API name, endpoint, auth model) before the enumeration of coverage. No 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?

For a two-optional-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, how it is invoked, and what a query returns. The remaining gap is what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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 both optional parameters are already documented, including the category/queryType mutual exclusion. The description adds the overall count (24 types) and sample type values, but nothing about format or what an empty call yields beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get information about the Orderly Public Info API') and pins down the concrete surface: a zero-auth single endpoint, POST /v1/public/query, driven by a `type` field with 24 query types. The explicit API name also separates it from siblings like get_indexer_api_info and get_orderly_one_api_info.

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 implies this is the lookup for public market/account/platform data and lists example query types, but it never states when to pick it over the sibling API-info tools or when not to use it. The category-vs-queryType choice is handled in the schema rather than the description.

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