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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world and non-destructive traits, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: quotes are live and solver-signed, Dutch-auction prices decay over time (so results are time-sensitive), and output is sorted best deal first. It does not mention latency, quote staleness, or coverage limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and only three sentences, each carrying information (mechanism, sign interpretation, ordering). The opening sentence is long and clause-heavy, but no wording is redundant.

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 scanner with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is computed, how prices are sourced, and how results are ordered. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameter, plus no indication of result volume or how many chains/markets are covered.

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 single parameter max_price_near is optional and has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether it filters listing price, caps the scan, or restricts results in some other way, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete action (scan all Pusaka listings priced in BTC) and the exact computation performed: current listing price, including decaying Dutch-auction prices, versus a live solver-signed NEAR Intents quote for exiting the BTC into USDC. The arbitrage framing makes it clearly distinct from a plain listing or inspection tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (scan for undervalued listings) and the description explains how to read results, since a negative discount means a real bargain. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings such as pusaka_market_book or pusaka_inspect, and 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.