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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: cost per call, ordering (oldest first), included fields (quote volume, window-closed flag), and byte-identical endpoint equivalence, which helps the agent predict output and side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core result, then cost, then exact API equivalence. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return value details. It covers the essential call context: what the tool returns, ordering, cost, and an exact endpoint reference. It omits potential rate-limit warnings, but these are not required given the annotations and schema richness.

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 the schema fully documents pair, limit, and interval. The description adds only an example URL with concrete values (pair=BTC_USDT&interval=5m&limit=20), which is illustrative but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource: returns OHLCV buckets from Gate with quote volume and window-closed flag, ordered oldest first. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like market_gate_depth, market_gate_ticker, and market_gate_trades by naming the exact data modality and exchange.

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 usage context is implied through the tool name and description: use it to get candle data from Gate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the exact endpoint example and cost information give practical usage hints.

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