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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by specifying 'Live', scoping to a single outcome token, and describing the returned data, though it does not disclose potential staleness, precision behavior, or formatting details.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the key resource ('Live order book') and follows with concrete content details. It contains no filler and every phrase earns its place.

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?

With only one required parameter, a complete schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description adequately conveys scope and return contents. The explicit listing of bids, asks, spread, midpoint, and last trade is especially valuable since no output schema exists, though depth behavior could have been slightly more explicit.

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 tokenId and depth are already fully documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'one outcome token' maps back to tokenId but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('get'), resource ('order book'), and scope ('for one outcome token'), and lists the returned fields: bids and asks, spread, midpoint, and last trade. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_price_history or quote_order.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. The 'Live order book' phrasing implies the use case of current market depth, but an agent must infer when this is preferable to get_price_history or quote_order.

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