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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the book reflects live pending/active state (which explains the idempotentHint=false), covers both sides, and is sorted largest first. It does not mention depth limits, truncation, or whether the result is a snapshot, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing clause placed last where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by describing the return shape (both sides, largest first). What is missing is any hint about result size, depth limits, or pagination for a market-wide book, which an agent would need to consume the response safely.

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 tokenA/tokenB formats are already documented. The description adds the semantic frame that the two tokens form a pair whose both sides are returned, but no additional format, ordering, or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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?

Names a specific resource (the market's open limit orders for a token pair), the scope (both sides, pending/active, largest first), and the practical meaning ('liquidity you can rest against'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_orders, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

States the selecting condition and the alternative by name: 'For one wallet's own orders use list_orders instead.' That is an explicit when-not paired with a named sibling, leaving nothing to inference.

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