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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Beyond that, the description adds a key behavioral detail: if no wall passes the threshold, the tool returns GRID_NO_TRADE rather than an error. This clarifies expected non-success behavior in a way structured annotations do not capture.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first defines the exact objective and excludes the ATR method, and the second handles the edge-case return. Key information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method distinction, and the important no-trade return case. It does not spell out the success return shape, but that is reasonably inferable from the title and subject, and the edge-case disclosure adds important operational context.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat their meanings. The phrase 'threshold' and reference to ATR loosely connect to atr14Pct, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Cari bound grid') and a specific resource: thick bid/ask walls representing institutional limits. It also explicitly distinguishes the method from an alternative ('bukan High/Low ± ATR'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool: when grid bounds should be derived from wall liquidity rather than ATR-based high/low levels. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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