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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds a partial-coverage caveat (missing history/unpassed replay, never calm), which is useful behavioral context, but its meaning is cryptic and it gives no return-format or freshness details.

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?

It is short and front-loads the content list, but the fragmentary phrasing is under-specified rather than efficient. Phrases like 'never calm' are packed in without enough context to earn their 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry most of the explanatory burden. It enumerates the board's components and notes partial coverage, but the jargon and incomplete sentences leave an agent unsure what exactly is returned and how to interpret the caveats.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameters to explain, and the empty schema is consistent with the description's implicit no-input nature.

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 lists the data the tool surfaces (nine segment tiers, Seiche funding, measure counts, replay/withholding reasons), which gives some concrete content beyond the opaque name. However, terms like 'Seiche' and 'replay/withholding reasons' are unexplained, and it does not distinguish this 'full board' from sibling tools such as depth_episodes or unwind_watch.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus the many sibling liquidity/venue tools. The fragment 'PARTIAL: missing history/unpassed replay, never calm' hints at limitations but does not tell an agent when this board is the right choice or when another tool is preferable.

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