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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (trade units = total units and depth of a pool) but says nothing about return shape, size, or why a read operation is flagged non-idempotent. Modest added value against a lower bar.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; purpose is front-loaded and the domain gloss follows. Efficient, though it could have spent one of those sentences on when-to-use instead.

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?

Adequate for a one-parameter read tool with no output schema: purpose and the meaning of 'trade unit' are covered. Gaps remain on usage routing versus list_trade_units and on what the response contains, which the absence of an output schema means the description could have addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents the 'asset' parameter with concrete examples ('BTC~BTC', 'ETH~ETH'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns trade unit information for a specific asset') and adds a domain gloss explaining what a trade unit is. The singular 'specific asset' implicitly sets it apart from the plural sibling list_trade_units, but the differentiation is not made explicit.

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, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent is left to infer from 'for a specific asset' that this is a single-asset lookup and that list_trade_units covers enumeration, but that routing logic is never stated.

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