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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a pure calculation over caller-supplied depth, walks prices in the appropriate direction, and reports three result metrics. It does not cover edge cases like insufficient depth, but it transparently describes the core behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence conveys the purpose, inputs, computation direction, and source dependency with no wasted words. The most important constraint (not fetching its own data) is front and center.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully names the three return values (avg fill price, slippage %, impact cost). All required inputs are documented. It does not state behavior when order book depth is insufficient to reach the target notional, which is the main completeness gap for a tool of this kind.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the side semantics and data provenance (bids/asks from binance_get_order_book_depth), but adds little 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 names a specific verb ('Hitung'), the resource (order book depth), and the exact outputs: avg fill price, slippage %, and impact cost. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from binance_get_order_book_depth by stating it does NOT fetch data itself, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool that supplies its inputs.

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 gives explicit usage direction: the caller must supply bids/asks from binance_get_order_book_depth rather than having this tool fetch them. It states the side-specific walking logic (BUY uses asks, SELL uses bids) and the goal (filling a target notional USD), so an agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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