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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavior: null-safety via has_data=false when no HF capture exists, which prevents misinterpretation of empty results. However, it says nothing about cost, latency, rate limits, or permissions for what is likely an expensive high-frequency data pull.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: resource first, then the returned fields, then the null-safety caveat, then requirements. The trailing 'Requires: exchange, symbol' is redundant with the schema's required array but is short enough not to be a real cost.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so by naming the score range (0-100), quote persistence, HHI, imbalance volatility, and anomaly flags. Combined with the null-safety note, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result, though edge cases like HF-window length or historical availability are unaddressed.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. 'Requires: exchange, symbol' merely restates the required fields without adding format, casing, or valid-ID guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource ('high-frequency orderbook microstructure for a token') and enumerates the returned metrics, so an agent knows this is a microstructure/quality endpoint rather than a plain price lookup. It never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from get_price_stats or get_token_intel, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'Detects bot/MM activity and depth resilience' implies the analytical use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to call it, and no routing to alternatives among the many sibling get_* tools. Usage must be inferred from the metric list.

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