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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return field list and pagination support (limit, before/after), providing additional behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key source ('Coinbase Exchange') and purpose ('recent trade tape'), with a clear enumeration of returned fields. No unnecessary 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure) and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers the resource scope, parameters, and pagination behavior. It is a complete description for a simple read-only listing tool.

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's explanation of product_id as a crypto pair like 'BTC-USD' and mention of limit and before/after cursor pagination adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail exact cursor semantics or limit defaults.

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 identifies the tool as returning the recent trade tape for a crypto pair on Coinbase Exchange, listing specific fields (trade ID, price, size, side, timestamp). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_ticker or product_candles by focusing on the trade tape.

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 the tool is for retrieving recent trades for a product but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as product_ticker or product_candles, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The usage context is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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