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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond these by noting 'needs base URL' (a practical requirement) and reinforcing safety with 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers'. It also disclaims investment advice. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose, then alternatives, then disclaimers. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to safety disclaimers, but each sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 5-parameter tool with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage routing, a key prerequisite (base URL), and safety profile. It does not describe return values, but that is handled by the output schema. Remaining gaps are minor.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond mentioning the base URL requirement, which is not a parameter. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'Order book depth: bids/asks ladder from Gate', naming the specific resource (Gate order book) and the verb (get depth). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing trade tape (get_recent_trades) and trend-index bars (markettrend_get_kline), making its unique purpose clear.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Trade tape→get_recent_trades' and 'Trend-index bars→markettrend_get_kline'. It also mentions the prerequisite 'needs base URL', giving concrete context for invocation. This is direct and actionable.

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