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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: frequent rate limiting and error-handling advice. It doesn't contradict the annotations and enriches the agent's expectations about reliability.

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 concise sentences pack the core purpose, the main caveat (rate limiting), the error-handling advice, and the exclusion of a sibling. No filler, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 market-wide data tool, the description covers the critical caveats (rate limit, not a substitute) and the schema documents parameters and the detail output format. It could mention return structure explicitly, but the schema's detail description references docs, making it reasonably complete.

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 high (80%), and the 'detail' parameter's meaning (summary vs full) is already explained in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics but doesn't need to given the schema coverage; 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 and resource ('Histori liquidation / force orders market-wide') and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('Bukan pengganti data liquidation-by-price'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from the dozens of sibling tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: cautions that the endpoint is often rate-limited ('endpoint ini sering dibatasi Binance'), advises handling errors well, and clarifies it is not a substitute for liquidation-by-price data (which is WAF-blocked). This tells the agent when to use it and when to avoid it, with a clear alternative.

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