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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by describing what is computed and returned (outward cumulative aggregation, price-impact simulation for 0.1%–5% trades). It stays silent on any fusion of the two data sources or freshness, which keeps it below 5.

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 returned content and closed with the usage trigger. Dense but every clause is informative. Slightly heavy parenthetical nesting keeps it from a 5.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly for both the order book and the QSwap pool, including reserve, price, and price-impact figures. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret this 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 100%, so both 'asset' (with a pointer to qmax_list_assets) and 'levels' are documented in the schema. The description reinforces that output is grouped by price from the best outward, which lightly informs 'levels', but adds no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the resource and contents: the QX order book (grouped by price, cumulative size/cost, best bid/ask, spread) and the QSwap pool (reserves, price, price impact). It is a specific and informative statement of what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g., qmax_get_liquidity_pool, qmax_pool_detail), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use it to judge depth before sizing an order' gives a concrete when-to-use context. However, it names no alternative or exclusion condition, so an agent has no explicit routing guidance versus the other pool/book siblings like qmax_swap_quote or qmax_get_quote.

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