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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the interpretation of the value ('A value above 1 means more accounts sit long'), mentions the period bucketing, and specifies the venue (OKX). This enriches understanding without contradicting 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?

Three sentences with zero filler: definition, interpretation, and usage. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. This is concise and well-structured.

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 lack of an output schema, the description conveys the core return semantics (the ratio, interpretation, and bucketing). It relies on the schema for default values, which is acceptable. Minor gaps: the instId is implied to be an OKX perpetual but not explicitly described, and there is no mention of edge cases or response format. Still, the essential context is covered.

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 provides descriptions for period and buckets (67% coverage). The description adds the concept of the ratio and bucketing by period, but does not elaborate on the instId parameter (e.g., the specific format or contract naming) or add new details beyond what the schema gives. It neither fully compensates for the uncovered instId nor contradicts 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 precisely states the tool returns the long/short account ratio for a crypto perpetual on OKX, and defines the metric ('ratio of accounts holding longs to accounts holding shorts'). This clearly separates it from sibling metrics like funding_rate or open_interest by naming the specific resource and the sentiment interpretation.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use for positioning and crowd-sentiment reads on a perp.' It provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools (e.g., funding_rate, open_interest).

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