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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds only 'Público', which hints at no authentication but does not elaborate on rate limits, depth of order book, pagination, or other behavioral aspects. The value added beyond annotations is minimal.

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 description is extremely concise—two short phrases that immediately convey the core purpose. It is well front-loaded with the key information and contains no extraneous words.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits important details such as the meaning and format of the 'market' and 'account' parameters, the structure of the returned order book, and any limitations (e.g., depth, update frequency). While the tool is simple, the description lacks enough context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it only mentions 'de um par' (of a pair) but does not explicitly map to the 'market' parameter or explain the 'account' parameter. The presence of an 'account' parameter in a 'Público' tool is confusing and not clarified. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what parameter names convey.

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 that the tool provides the order book (bids/asks) for a trading pair. It uses the Portuguese phrase 'Livro de ofertas (bids/asks) de um par', which directly indicates the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bity_ticker (price data) and bity_trades (trade history). The addition of 'Público' further clarifies that the data is public.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'Público' implying no authentication, but does not contrast with siblings like bity_ticker or bity_trades, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as needing to specify a market.

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