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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: quantity is in the exchange's own unit, links contain no referral parameters, and 'AfterFees never trades.'

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence and avoids repetition, with every clause contributing either output detail or a relevant caveat. It is dense but not wasteful; the run-on structure slightly reduces readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the expected order fields and caveats, which is enough to set expectations for this simple two-parameter tool. Some details, such as exact response ordering or how notional changes the checklist, remain implicit.

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 two parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions notional and pair scope only indirectly and does not add syntax or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 clearly states this produces a two-order manual checklist for one pair and lists the exact fields in each order, so the resource is easy to identify. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as manual_calculator or pair_breakdown, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'to place by hand': the agent can infer this is for manual order execution, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative sibling tool.

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