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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: 'Direction is the taker's side' defines the semantics, and 'partial' is true while the server is still loading' discloses an asynchronous completion state an agent would otherwise misread as final data.

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 zero filler, front-loading the measured quantities before the scope and the partial-load caveat. Every clause carries information not present in the structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates what comes back (volumes, trade counts, net pressure, partial flag) plus the sign convention. The only material gap is the unexplained venue parameter; otherwise an agent can call and interpret this tool from the description alone.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain window semantics ('last hour or 24 hours') and that asset is optional ('one asset or the whole market'), but venue — an enum with two values — is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving that parameter opaque.

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 concrete resource (buy/sell volume in QU and units, trade counts, net pressure) with scope (last hour or 24 hours, one asset or whole market) and even defines the sign convention. It is distinguishable from siblings like qmax_get_tape or qmax_get_order_book, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope clauses ('for one asset or the whole market', window choices) rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. There is no exclusion or explicit pointer to a sibling tool for related questions such as raw trades.

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