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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: authentication modes (api-key mode vs signature mode for an internal-account wallet), the `Authorization: ApiKey` header, the explicit prohibition on passing keys as tool arguments, and the fact that the server forwards the key from session/header. It also discloses a concrete freshness characteristic (market depth changes roughly every TRON block, ~3 seconds), which is behavior an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then alternatives, then the labeled FRESHNESS constraint, so the most decision-relevant material comes first. It is dense and the authentication sentence is long, but each sentence contributes a distinct constraint, with no filler or repeated annotation content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: auth prerequisites, sibling alternatives, mutation-free nature, and the time-sensitivity of the returned data. Nothing material is missing for a read-only market query with four optional parameters.

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 every parameter (address filter, durationSec, resourceType, minDelegateAmount) is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no per-parameter syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond mentioning the ENERGY/BANDWIDTH and price-tier concepts already covered by the enum and schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns current market depth/price tiers for ENERGY or BANDWIDTH via the api-key REST endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting it has the same depth as the public `tronsave_list_order_books` plus SLOW/MEDIUM/FAST tiers, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (before `tronsave_internal_order_create` or `tronsave_internal_order_estimate` when live prices or liquidity are needed), an explicit alternative (the public tool when there is no API key), and a pre-call timing rule (re-read immediately before placing an order). No exclusions are left to inference.

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