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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it withholds stale/future data, excludes uncovered or unconverted venues, excludes fees, and clarifies no trade clearance.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity contributes to ambiguity, but it is structurally efficient.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description gives useful caveats but remains incomplete. It does not explain return semantics, what 'rung/bracket' means, or how max_age_seconds affects results.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. It hints at four sell sizes (matching the default) but never explains sizes_usd bounds/meaning or max_age_seconds at all.

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?

The description says it produces 'Four BTC sell sizes by rung/bracket' and mentions freshness/caveats, so the general domain is clear. But 'rung/bracket' is unexplained, and the description does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like exit_cost or trade_safety_exit_context.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. 'Fees excluded; no trade clearance' implies it is not an execution tool but does not route the agent between this and sibling tools.

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