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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what a tier table contains (leverage caps, position limits), whether IDs come from the list endpoint, or error behavior for an invalid ID.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key scoping detail ('by table ID') placed last where it reads naturally. Efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral detail.

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 simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the essentials to invoke correctly are present. It is thin on what the returned table means and where table IDs originate, but no output schema exists so return-value detail is not strictly required.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond restating the table_id concept, and notably does not flag that the settle enum includes 'usd1' while the schema text says 'usdt or btc'.

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 verb and resource ('Get a specific risk limit tier table') and scopes it with 'by table ID', which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool cex_fx_list_fx_risk_limit_tiers. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

The 'by table ID' phrasing implies you must already have a table ID, which hints that enumeration belongs to the sibling list tool, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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