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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the data source (Hydromancer position snapshots), the 'stale' indicator, and that ADL mode omits per-trader rows.

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-loads purpose, then details each view. The field enumerations are dense but earn their place given there is no output schema. Some range values duplicate the schema, and the parenthetical flow is slightly crammed but still scannable.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of documenting returns and does so thoroughly for both views, including defaults and the ADL omission. Minor gap: 'stale' is named but never explained, and refresh/freshness expectations for the snapshots are unstated.

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 only 60%, but the description compensates by documenting defaults (view, queue_side), explicit ranges (bucket_pct 0.05-5, max_distance_pct 1-100), and which view each parameter applies to. It adds meaning beyond the terse 'levels only'/'adl only' schema notes.

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 (liquidation levels and the ADL queue for one perp), and explicitly maps the natural-language intent 'liquidation map for BTC' to this call. No sibling tool covers liquidation maps, so it is clearly distinguishable from get_positions/get_exposures/get_live_snapshot.

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 clear routing context ('the call for "liquidation map for BTC"') and distinguishes the two modes with defaults (view=levels default, view=adl, queue_side default short). It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or contrast against a specific alternative.

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