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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses cost and side-effect behavior ('no payment required, no clocks are started or credits spent'), partial-failure semantics (an unknown symbol is skipped with a typed warning rather than 404-ing the whole blotter), the 20-asset cap, and the empty-result contract ('an empty pending is []: data, not a fabricated "none"'). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure that annotations alone would not convey.

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 front-loaded ('FREE — MANY ASSETS, ONE OBJECT') and every sentence carries information: output-field semantics, parameter behavior, failure mode, and the agent loop. It is dense and jargon-laden, which costs some readability, but there is little filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still frames what the three row sets mean, covers the parameter default/cap, documents degraded-mode behavior, and closes with an end-to-end agent loop. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret partial results is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the 20-asset cap (the schema only bounds maxLength at 400 characters) and reaffirming the BTC,ETH,SOL default and skip-with-warning behavior. It does not add format or ordering guidance beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a cross-asset cut of the question sheet returning open clocks ('pending'), last dead chips ('latest_terminal') and blocked questions ('dark') for the named assets. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly linking to tollbridge_sheet and GET /v1/clocks/open as the single-source equivalents. However, the heavy proprietary jargon ('dead chip', 'question sheet', 'blocked question') makes the exact purpose harder to parse than a plain verb+resource statement.

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 gives explicit usage context and an operational workflow: read the blotter, sleep until min(pending.horizon_end), read the resolution, then ask only rows where ask.allowed == true. It also signals this is the free, multi-asset read. It stops short of stating when to prefer it over tollbridge_sheet or tollbridge_open_clocks, which it only cites as consistency references rather than alternatives.

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