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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: results are estimates, fees are excluded, and the values are 'not executable' — a critical caveat that changes how an agent should present them.

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?

Zero filler: three fragments, caveats front-loaded before the handoff pointer. It is dense to the point of being telegraphic, but every clause carries information and nothing 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 single-parameter read-only tool with full annotation and schema coverage, most requirements are met. Still missing: the return shape implied by the title ('per venue' — how many venues, what fields, spread vs mid reference), which the absent output schema leaves entirely undocumented.

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%; size_usd already documents the $1,000–$1,000,000 rung range and nearest-rung snapping. The description restates 'nearest-rung' but adds no new syntax, unit, or edge-case detail 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 resource and computation: BTC sell-side cost estimates derived from interpolated bid-depth bands at the nearest published rung. The verb is implicit ('estimates') but the resource and method are concrete, and the pointer to crypto_exit_check for sizes/freshness distinguishes it from that sibling.

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?

It routes one specific need (sizes/freshness) to crypto_exit_check, which is a genuine alternative-handoff. However, it never states the general when-to-use condition or excludes other plausible siblings like liquidity_tiers, unwind_watch, or trade_safety_exit_context, leaving selection partly to inference.

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