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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine method-level caveats — 'deepest-venue blindness', 'concentration', 'dislocations', and the experimental status — which are useful disclosure beyond structured fields. It still says nothing about the timeframe, snapshot freshness, or shape of the result.

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 one short line with no filler, which is good, but it is a comma-spliced jargon list rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. 'Depth/squared-half-spread weights' and 'deepest-venue blindness' cost the reader more parsing effort than the length saves.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does not — no return shape, no asset granularity beyond BTC/ETH, no timeframe or refresh cadence. For a zero-param analytical tool whose only contract is its output, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 and the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description cannot add parameter value because none exist.

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 names the assets (BTC/ETH) and the concept (consensus price) plus the weighting methodology, so an agent can infer this reconciles prices across venues. But it is a noun-phrase fragment list with no verb, and the name ('reconciliation') versus the description ('consensus') leave it unclear whether the tool returns a price, a divergence report, or a diagnostic. It also doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like venue_concentration or liquidity_tiers.

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?

'Experimental; no execution authority' is a constraint, not usage guidance — it says what not to do with the output, not when to call the tool. There is no stated trigger, no timeframe, and no pointer to the closely related siblings (venue_concentration, depth_episodes, liquidity_tiers) that an agent would need to choose between.

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