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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the cost ($0.001 USDC per call), the byte-identical equivalence to a REST endpoint, and the derived top-of-book spread. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only depth snapshot this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core function is front-loaded, the cost is stated, and the byte-identical endpoint reference is a compact way to give implementers a precise contract. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only order book tool with an output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns (bids, asks, sequence fields, spread), the cost, and the exact endpoint equivalence. The only minor gap is not describing the output schema's structure, but the output schema itself handles that.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds the 'levels per side' default and max via the schema, and the description's 'one pair' clarifies the pair parameter's scope. However, the description doesn't add much beyond the schema: it doesn't explain the format of levels or how the spread is derived. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Resting bids and asks'), a resource ('from Gate for one pair'), and the venue's own sequence fields plus derived top-of-book spread. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like market_gate_ticker and market_gate_trades, and the byte-identical note ties it to a specific endpoint.

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 description implies when to use it: when you need resting order book depth for a Gate pair, with sequence fields and spread. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the byte-identical endpoint reference and the venue-specific naming make the context clear. A small gap: no explicit 'use market_gate_ticker for last price' style guidance.

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