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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It explains that capacity numbers are computed on REPORTED venue volume, an upper bound, and is warned to treat time-to-exit as optimistic. It details the unshipped 'effective volume' adjustment and the degeneracy_check in the response, and instructs not to present figures as verified. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 lengthy, but it is well-structured: a concise summary initially, followed by a list of returns, then a clearly marked 'IMPORTANT' caveat paragraph. Every sentence adds value, and the first sentence captures the core idea quickly. It is slightly longer than ideal, but not rambling.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the core operation, the specific metrics computed, the key caveat about data quality, the API key requirement, and the parameter meanings. The optional output schema exists separately to detail the return structure, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so fully: `coin` = ticker e.g. 'sol' and `position_usd` = position size in USD. Both parameters are covered with clear meaning and examples, compensating entirely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific resource (crypto position exit capacity) and a clear purpose: 'How fast a crypto position can be exited and what it costs.' It lists concrete use cases like 'how long to get out of $5M of SOL' and enumerates specific outputs. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other aspects such as funding or order flow.

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?

The description provides explicit example queries that signal when to use the tool, and it clearly mentions prerequisites ('Requires an EnsoTrade Pro API key'). It also warns about the interpretation of results (upper bound on tradable capacity). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or kind adjust behavior for alternatives that could compete.

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